Regime Change in Iran? The Perils of Playing with Fire in the Middle East

Paromita Das
New Delhi, 26th June: On June 23, 2025, Donald Trump—characteristically provocative—reignited the regime change debate with a loaded post on Truth Social. “It’s not politically correct to use the term ‘Regime Change’, but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn’t there be a regime change??? MIGA!!!” he wrote. The message was clear: while Trump stopped short of formally advocating for toppling the Iranian government, he heavily hinted that such an outcome was on the table. The timing of his post—just days after U.S. airstrikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities and similar rhetoric from Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu—suggests a concerted hardline stance emerging from both Washington and Jerusalem.

Yet, history has shown us that calls for regime change, especially in the Middle East, are rarely just political posturing. They can become self-fulfilling prophecies, setting into motion a series of events with catastrophic consequences for the region and the world.

A Familiar Tune with Unfamiliar Risks

Trump’s veiled threat came as tensions with Iran reached a boiling point. U.S. Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio tried to soften the administration’s stance, claiming that the U.S. is not aiming for regime change, but rather to halt Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Still, the ambiguity leaves room for interpretation, and that’s where the danger lies.

What’s unfolding now in Iran is eerily reminiscent of past U.S. interventions—where the goal is clean and noble on paper but deeply flawed and devastating in practice. In Iraq, Saddam Hussein’s removal didn’t deliver freedom and stability; it brought chaos, sectarian war, and the rise of ISIS. In Libya, the ousting of Gaddafi in 2011 created a power vacuum that fragmented the country and invited years of violence. Neither nation has fully recovered.

Iran, however, is a different beast altogether—more populous, more complex, and deeply entrenched in regional geopolitics. The stakes are higher, and the fallout could be far worse.

Iran Is No Monolith

The simplistic notion that removing the Ayatollahs would automatically lead to democracy ignores the socio-political intricacies of Iran. It’s a country of over 85 million people with a diverse ethnic fabric—Persians, Kurds, Azeris, Balochs—all with differing loyalties, grievances, and aspirations.

While some factions—particularly the Kurds—have openly called for the regime’s fall, others remain staunchly loyal. Even among Iran’s secular or reformist population, few would welcome foreign-imposed regime change. Any U.S.- or Israel-backed effort would likely be perceived as a neo-imperialist invasion, potentially rallying even moderate Iranians around the hardline Islamist factions in the name of nationalism.

What’s more, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), with its vast military and economic power, is well-positioned to step into any vacuum left by a toppled regime. Far from establishing democracy, such a move could usher in a military dictatorship far more dangerous and unpredictable than the current theocracy.

The Illusion of Controlled Chaos

It’s tempting to imagine that removing Khamenei would weaken Iran’s influence in the region, dismantle its proxy networks, and neutralize its nuclear threat. But this is a delusion. If history is any indicator, the fall of a central authority usually leads to fragmentation, not pacification. Iran’s proxies—Hezbollah, Houthis, and others—could double down on anti-Western campaigns, seeing the move as existential.

And what of the nuclear program? The chaos of regime collapse could very well push Iran to expedite nuclear development, especially if hardliners view it as their only deterrent against foreign occupation. Instead of freezing Iran’s capabilities, a rushed regime change could lead to a scenario where nuclear weapons fall into the hands of fragmented, ideologically radicalized factions.

No Exit Strategy, No Peace

One of the most damning critiques of previous regime change operations has been the lack of a coherent post-conflict strategy. Iraq and Libya are haunting examples. Despite having military plans to remove the old guard, the U.S. never had a workable blueprint for rebuilding these nations. The result? A cycle of civil wars, proxy battles, and enduring instability.

Iran, with its strong military, strategic alliances with Russia and China, and deeper integration in the Middle East, would not be so easily “cleaned up” post-intervention. If the Ayatollahs fall, rival factions, armed insurgents, and foreign players would rush in to claim influence. Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and even Pakistan could try to shape outcomes, dragging the region into a new era of proxy warfare.

A Powder Keg Waiting to Explode

Let’s not forget the broader context. The Middle East is already simmering with conflict—from the ongoing Israel-Gaza war to unrest in Lebanon and Syria. A destabilized Iran could ignite all these theatres simultaneously, adding fuel to fires that are barely under control.

The economic implications are also dire. Oil prices would spike dramatically, energy markets would be thrown into disarray, and global trade routes might be compromised. The shock to the global economy could rival or exceed the 1973 oil crisis. Refugee flows would overwhelm already strained neighboring countries, and a humanitarian crisis could unfold on an epic scale.

Don’t Break What You Can’t Fix

The seductive simplicity of the “Make Iran Great Again” slogan masks an extraordinarily complex reality. Regime change is not a button to be pushed—it’s a domino chain of unpredictable outcomes, each with the potential to spiral into something worse than what it aims to fix.

If the U.S. and Israel truly want to neutralize the threat posed by Iran, their focus should remain on strategic containment, targeted sanctions, diplomacy, and support for internal reform movements. Toppling the regime without a credible, well-supported, and widely accepted plan for the aftermath would not only fail to make Iran great again—it would make the Middle East bleed again.

In a region already stretched to its breaking point, reckless talk of regime change is not leadership. It’s a gamble. And history shows us that it’s the people—not the policymakers—who pay the price when that gamble fails.