The ongoing joint US–Israel assault on Iran is not just another chapter in the endless Middle East cycle of violence; it’s the climax of a long-standing project: dismantling the Iranian regime not merely as a nuclear threat but as a political and social entity. The objective is to bomb Iran and its people into a perennial struggle for survival so deep that no anti-US and anti-Israel political dispensation can emerge.

Diplomacy as a Veil for Destabilization

Since the 1979 revolution, Iran has been cast in US and Israeli strategic calculus as the principal antagonist in the Middle East. Nuclear proliferation has repeatedly been invoked as justification for sanctions, isolation, and now direct military assault. Yet the current offensive - launched amidst ongoing negotiations over Tehran’s nuclear programme - indicates something far more existential. Trump said that the US will show that no power should challenge the US, indicating his intention to expand the “scope of destruction” beyond the regime.

Just days before today’s [Mar 1-ed] strikes, indirect talks brokered by Oman were underway to constrain Iran’s nuclear and missile programmes in exchange for limited sanctions relief. Tehran’s negotiators appeared poised to present counterproposals, suggesting that diplomacy had not entirely collapsed. But Washington and Tel Aviv chose to strike before, not after, any diplomatic deadlock was formalized.

The justification proffered to domestic and global audiences - that Iran’s nuclear ambitions must be rolled back - has long served as rhetorical camouflage for a deeper agenda. With Iran’s nuclear capabilities already constrained after years of sanctions and inspections, attention shifted toward its ballistic missile programme - a far broader target that touches on the core of Iranian national defence and sovereignty.

Rolling back ballistic capacity, from Tehran’s perspective, is indistinguishable from surrendering its sovereignty to the US and Israel. More importantly, it understood that even agreeing to such a demand will not necessarily lead to a stable negotiated outcome, given that the actual target remains total regime change. A next US-Israel demand could very well be total control of Iranian oil!

The Hidden Logic of Regime Change

Decades of US foreign policy show a pattern: when sanctions and diplomacy fail to produce the desired political outcome, force enters the calculus. Washington and Tel Aviv do not appear poised to replicate that pattern in Iran. Rather, they appear to be simply betting on naked force. Thus, the offensive is targeting not only Iranian military infrastructure but also command and control centers close to the highest echelons of political leadership.

This is not merely punitive; it is decapitative. But it is packaged as “reformist” insofar as the US is “asking” Iranians to take over power. But is this what the US actually desires? It is entirely possible that the takeover by Iranian people could reproduce an anti-US and anti-Israel regime. How would the US and Israel ensure that this does not happen?

The Real Target: Regime and Society

Regime change is not an unfamiliar instrument in US strategic practice. From Iraq to Libya, disarmament narratives have often masked broader political ambitions. However, Iran presents something more profound than a hostile government. It represents an enduring model of Islamic political sovereignty that has survived war, sanctions, isolation, and internal dissent for nearly half a century.

For Israel, the Islamic Republic constitutes not merely a military threat but an ideological one insofar as it is a state whose identity is explicitly anchored in opposition to Zionism and Western dominance in the region. For Washington, Iran stands as a defiant node in a network linking Russia and China to Middle Eastern geopolitics. Removing the regime would fracture that alignment and reconfigure regional balances in America’s favour. Yet the ambition appears to extend beyond replacing leadership figures.

There is a deeper objective emerging in strategic discourse: altering Iranian society itself so that a future Islamic revival becomes structurally impossible. The Islamic Republic is not sustained solely by coercion; it is rooted in institutions, religious networks, educational structures, and a political theology that blends nationalism with Islamism. Simply removing the top leadership would not eradicate that ecosystem.

In this sense, the objective resembles not merely regime change but total regime replacement, i.e., the construction of a political order aligned with US and Israeli strategic interests and insulated against future Islamic mobilization. How would this happen? Trump, as it stands, has already warned of a long war on Iran, i.e., until the objective is achieved, and that is precisely why Iran has been attacked, for the second time, in less than a year.

This is why concessions limited to nuclear rollback were insufficient. A nuclear-compliant Iran could still maintain its ideological posture, its regional alliances, and its missile deterrent. It could remain Islamic, sovereign, and strategically autonomous. That outcome does not satisfy those who seek a Middle East reordered under clear hierarchies of power.

For the United States, regime change in Tehran represents a two-fer: it weakens a geopolitical partner of China and Russia and bolsters American influence in a region rich in energy resources. The comparison with Venezuela is instructive. When Caracas defied US interests, its government was targeted, its political leadership captured, and its oil resources brought under US control, hurting Chinese interests directly.

The message from Washington is unmistakable: positions that align with Beijing and Moscow are subject to forceful revision. The implication is clear: Iran’s pivot toward non-Western powers is intolerable. But this calculus fails to reckon with Iran’s capacity to resist and inflict asymmetric damage.

Escalation and Strategic Blowback

Iran’s response has already demonstrated that this conflict will not remain confined to its territory. Missile and drone strikes targeting Israeli positions and US assets in Gulf states illustrate Tehran’s willingness to widen the theatre. The strategic logic is clear: survival requires raising the costs for all parties involved. Iran possesses asymmetric tools that extend far beyond its borders. The geography of escalation stretches across choke points vital to global commerce.

If the war drags on, the consequences will radiate outward. Gulf states hosting US bases become immediate and permanent targets. Turkey, balancing NATO commitments with regional interests, faces complex pressures. Pakistan - geographically proximate and historically entangled in regional rivalries - cannot assume insulation from instability spreading westward.

The assumption in Washington and Tel Aviv may be that overwhelming force will produce rapid capitulation or internal fracture. But history suggests that external assault often consolidates domestic resolve. An attack intended to weaken the regime may instead strengthen nationalist solidarity. Moreover, attempting to reshape Iranian society from the outside risks reinforcing precisely the ideological currents it seeks to extinguish. Islamic revivalist narratives thrive on perceptions of siege and resistance. Military intervention designed to prevent an Islamic political resurgence could paradoxically energize it.

Fire Does Not Stay Contained

In the short term, this war will likely unfold through calibrated escalation. Iran will widen the theatre just enough to raise costs, while Washington and Tel Aviv insist their objectives remain limited. Oil prices will spike. Regional governments will hedge. The first weeks will test deterrence; the first months will test endurance. But if the true objective is regime replacement and societal transformation, this conflict cannot remain limited. Sustained pressure will invite sustained retaliation. A war designed to exhaust Iran into political surrender will expand by design.

Over the longer term, neither plausible outcome promises stability. If the Islamic Republic survives, it will emerge more militarized and more deeply aligned with China and Russia, accelerating bloc politics in the region. If it fractures, Iran could descend into prolonged instability at the heart of Eurasia, creating a vacuum no external power will easily control.

Washington and Tel Aviv may believe they can choreograph this escalation. History suggests otherwise. Wars launched to remake political and social orders rarely end on the terms imagined at the outset. Fire, once lit, does not obey its architects. The US war on Afghanistan that spent trillions of dollars and killed hundreds of thousands to remake the regime and society only brought the same regime back it apparently dismantled in 2001. The US war on Iran shows no lesson has been learned, let alone followed.

Salman Rafi Sheikh, research analyst of International Relations and Pakistan’s foreign and domestic affairs. Courtesy

https://journal-neo.su/2026/03/01/why-the-us-and-israel-want-to-destroy-iran/