Israeli/US friendly Iran in a new Middle East?
Looks like Plan B—regime change—is now in motion for Iran. Two scenarios may follow, all alarming, and none fit the Wonderland of the Western World. How do we crawl back from this dark rabbit hole?
This has been Netanyahu’s lifelong dream. “I waited for this moment for 40 years,” he said in a recent public address. He did not even shy away from identifying his secondary goal: regime change in Iran.
Militarily speaking, attacking Iran’s nuclear sites will not dismantle its nuclear program. Iran still has the scientists, the know-how, the infrastructure, and a stockpile of enriched uranium sufficient to produce weapons. The main centrifuges are buried deep underground, at Natanz and Fordow, beyond the reach of Israeli missiles without direct American support. Only the US possesses the bunker-busting capacity to strike those facilities effectively.
In the meantime, Israel appears to be deploying its “decapitation” strategy, used before on Hezbollah—targeting the top brass. It has killed a chief of staff and a dozen scientists, including one who, according to Israeli media, was on the verge of a breakthrough. But Iran is not Hezbollah, is it? It is a state, with institutional depth. The assassinated general is replaced, then his successor is killed within days. And still, the machine holds. These targeted killings may succeed in shaking the surface but not in breaking the system. Not via aerial strikes, anyway.
So what is the endgame?
Scenario 1: The mutual missile attacks persist for a time, until the US imposes its weight. A backchannel deal is struck. Iran agrees to suspend uranium enrichment program altogether.
This is highly unlikely. Israel’s attack has only strengthened the logic behind a nuclear deterrent. From Iran’s perspective, the attack only confirmed that the sole guarantee of safety in a region where one state—Israel—possesses nuclear weapons and strikes at will, whether out of threat perception or political convenience, is to become a nuclear power itself.
Scenario 2 : Israel claims aerial superiority. Trump says he opposes an Iranian bomb but sends conflicting signals about US involvement. He and Netanyahu decide it is now or never. Iran pulls out of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and closes the Strait of Hormuz, as it threatened to do just days ago. Israel kills Supreme Leader Khamenei. A coup-like takeover unfolds.
And then what?
An Iran governed by a US- and Israel-friendly regime? Netanyahu on a pedestal, remembered as the man who rid the West of its most persistent adversary?
Anta, majnun?
As the author of this newsletter, I feel it is my duty to read, listen to, and watch the most excruciating commentary so you don’t have to. In this self-assigned, and now irreversible, act of public service, I endured a painful half hour of conversation between two architects of American militarism: H.R. McMaster—veteran of the Gulf War, war in Afghanistan, the 2003 Iraq invasion, and Trump’s first national security advisor—and the Orientalist par excellence, Niall Ferguson. Both are fellows at the Hoover Institution. They host a podcast called GoodFellows. The irony almost writes itself.
Niall Ferguson: Israelis need to have a plan B. And I think that plan B is regime change. I think Plan B is topple the Islamic Republic, and then if you have enough chaos on the ground, then Israeli special forces may be able to take care of Fordow [one of the sites said to have Iran’s nuclear arsenal] without the need for bunker-busting bombs and an SAS-type operation behind enemy lines. So I think we're seeing a shift here away from, ‘let's try and get the US to finish the job off from the air’ to ‘we better get rid of the regime, and in the ensuing chaos, we can really finish off this nuclear programme.’ What do you think, HR?’
H.R. McMaster: I agree. What we’ve seen is the weakness of the Iranian regime. You could see a Libya-style fragmentation, except on a much larger scale.
If I had the stamina (or the stomach) to sit across these two men discussing what three others (Netanyahu, Trump, and Khamenei) might do to plunge the world into catastrophe, I would ask: And this is good? Chaos in the streets of Tehran? A Libya-style collapse and fragmentation?
There is no consolidated political alternative to the regime in Tehran. No legitimate government can be summoned from the exiled royalist diaspora in Los Angeles. A laughable idea, though one suspects some in Washington might entertain it. Nor is it realistic to expect a leader to emerge organically from the Iranian protest movements. Not now. Not under bombardment.
Yes, the majority of Iranians are fed up with repression, corruption, isolation. But a nation under foreign fire does not behave like one merely suffering under domestic rule. People do not rise in protest when missiles are falling. Even if they do, dismantling a 40-year-old authoritarian regime through grassroots mobilization requires time, unity, and safety, none of which survive air raids.
If the regime falls in a few weeks, whatever replaces it will never be seen as legitimate, only as ‘installed.’ A pliant caretaker, ready to sign what it is told and keep quiet. How sustainable is that? May I kindly remind you that after the US toppled Iran’s legitimate prime minister, Mohammad Mossadegh, in 1953, the resulting crisis of legitimacy simmered for decades and culminated in the revolution that brought Khomeini to power. No lessons learned here, I suppose. Of course not.
Netanyahu has a habit of speaking directly to the Iranian people, promising them freedom. He did so a year ago, after the two countries exchanged fire following Israel’s assassination of two Iranian generals at the Damascus embassy. Set aside the pretentiousness, it reveals a man with no sense of history and no interest in the actual dynamics of Iran. Of course not.
The Iranian people are very proud. They do not welcome foreign domination. Nor are they conditioned to tolerate it.
Toppling a regime from within, through sustained social movement, is one thing. That’s revolution. What follows is uncertain, messy, but sometimes transformative.
Toppling a regime through foreign-instigated war or coup? That’s intervention. What follows is chaos and illegitimacy.
So again: what is the endgame?
To prolong Netanyahu’s shelf life?
To continue the genocide in Gaza?
To occupy more of the West Bank?
To wreck the Middle East a little more?
Seriously asking.
As for a new Middle East order…
Frequent and intense warfare tends to correlate with authoritarian governance. The need to mobilize resources compels states in the region to expand their reach into society. Conflict demands manpower and financial extraction. It is, as the region’s strongmen will argue, a matter of survival.
An arms race is already taking shape between Turkey, Egypt, and the Gulf states. The resulting defence and securitization measures, as you can guess, will not merely be directed outward. They will be turned inward and used to crush what remains of dissent.
This is not a new Middle East. Israel’s actions stoke public fear and grant authoritarian leaders the perfect excuse to hold on, no matter the cost.
Just listen to what Erdoğan said in response to Israel’s attack on Iran:
‘We know well that it is better to lie with honor beneath the earth than to live without dignity above it. We have demonstrated this resolve time and again throughout our history, which is full of struggle. Avoiding such a fate is not achieved through lofty words, empty rhetoric, or grandstanding like some do. You must work for it, improve yourselves, produce, sweat, and prove your worth to the entire world. Reaching this point in 23 years was by no means easy. We already consider obstacles coming from outside to be normal, but we will never forget — and we will never forgive — those on the inside who tried to sabotage every step by belittling our efforts and erecting senseless obstacles in the bureaucracy, academia, and media. Whatever we achieved, we did so despite these imperialist lackeys who pretend to be one of us while hurling arrows at us. Inshallah, in the not-too-distant future, we will have built a defense capacity so strong that no one will even dare to challenge us. As a state and as a nation, we will endure some hardships and make some sacrifices so that we can reach our goals. Let no one doubt this: our government and our alliance are the foundation and the guarantee of Turkey’s independence and future in this turbulent time in our region. The trust of 86 million people is in safe hands.’
As you can see, Erdoğan’s speech frames national security as inseparable from his leadership and his alliance with the hawkish nationalist party MHP, casting himself as the sole guarantor of Turkey’s independence and defense. While invoking external threats to justify this posture, he reserves particular scorn for domestic critics -those “on the inside”- whom he accuses of sabotage and betrayal. This is folding foreign conflict into a familiar authoritarian playbook: rallying nationalist sentiment, delegitimizing dissent, and consolidating power under the guise of existential crisis.
Trust me on this. Erdoğan is not the only leader in the Middle East or elsewhere, for that matter, who uses this kind of rhetoric and will continue to do so. Sisi, al-Sharra, MBS, MBZ, Saied. The list goes on.
The region is crowded with leaders who thrive in war because war erases questions about their misrule and corruption.
So, again: Is this the new Middle East?
Does anyone truly believe that something good comes of this?
If we’re lucky enough to dodge a regional war or a nuclear leak, the best-case scenario is this: a league of fortified autocrats.
Another Shameful WMD Moment
There is no evidence of a nuclear “breakthrough” in Iran. Tulsi Gabbard, a military officer currently serving as the Director of National Intelligence, stated on April 10, 2025, that there is no confirmed intelligence suggesting Iran has a nuclear weapon or is in the process of developing one. If MOSSAD has different intelligence, Netanyahu’s government has not provided it.
And yet, no international condemnation followed Israel’s unprovoked attack. Emmanuel Macron endorsed Israel’s “right to defend itself” while condemning Iran—the country that was attacked. The UK prime minister was more cautious this time, stopping short of promising military support like the assistance it offered a year ago to intercept Iranian drones. Ursula von der Leyen echoed the expected refrain: “Israel has a right to defend itself.”
If these leaders are not trying to drive us insane, then they are certainly insulting our memory. Because what they are doing is recycling the logic of 2003 that destroyed Iraq. Now, it may do worse.
There is a dangerous misrepresentation in Western media that the latest resolution from the International Atomic Energy Agency proves Iran is building a bomb. It does not. The resolution expresses concern over Iran’s lack of cooperation and non-compliance with the Safeguards Agreement under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. That is very different from confirming a nuclear weapons program.
The media should have learned its lesson. In 2003, it failed to scrutinise the claims about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Those weapons were never found. The apologies came years too late.
It is astonishing how easily reality can be twisted by European leaders. The mantra 'Israel has the right to defend itself' is repeated like a line from a holy book, even when Israel is the one launching the attack. Iran, when it responds in self-defense, is the one condemned. I honestly do not understand how we ended up in this Wonderland of the Western World, where everything is inverted.
One thing is certain: crawling back from this dark rabbit hole will require a collective reckoning across civil societies around the world.
It’s interesting how these pro-imperialist pseudo-intellectuals think regime change will be easy in Iran. Just shows their arrogance and ignorance. First of all Iran fought an eight year war against Iraq during the 1980s when it is was much weaker than today, and yet the regime held together. Iran is not Lebanon, Syria or Iraq. Unlike these other nations which were created only a hundred years ago, Iran has a long continuous history stretching back 2,600 years. The attempt at ‘decapitation’ has failed and the people are mobilizing for resistance. Sure Israel with its allies in the US and Europe may be able to recruit some Azeris, Kurds and Arabs but I don’t think it will de-stabilize the country. I can remember during the Vietnam war the US recruited ethnic minorities in Vietnam and Laos to fight against the liberation forces, didn’t really work. For those trying to pitch regime change in terms of human rights and the liberation of women, it is the Iranian people themselves who will define and lead these struggles according to their own terms and not those of imperial overlords.
Hello. Loved your article, and I subscribed immediately. I am eager to know your views about something that's been nagging at me for a few years, which is this - what is it about Israel, that makes the Western world's moral compass go awry, as if north and south poles have got flipped? Why has Israel been placed on a moral pedestal from where it can get away LITERALLY with murder, with planned genocide? Is it lingering/perpetual holocaust guilt, even after 3 generations? Is it the influence that Jews exert on governments, which makes them indispensable for the survival of political parties and politicians? Is it the billions that it gives to corporations around the world through its arms and other high tech purchases?
Would appreciate your take on this.