A snowball is gathering momentum at a perilous pace in the Middle East, signalling the onset of profound and possibly irreversible transformations in both the regional and global order.
The Israeli strikes on Iran and Tehran’s retaliation since last Friday have effectively shattered the fragile regional equilibrium, flinging open a Pandora’s Box,
What lies ahead is cloaked in uncertainty, but the possibilities are as dramatic as they are dangerous, ranging from a violent overthrow of the Iranian regime to a coerced capitulation in which Tehran agrees to sweeping concessions.
Such an agreement could entail the full dismantling of its nuclear and missile programmes, alongside a radical reorientation of its foreign policy.
Amid this unfolding crisis, US President Donald Trump has displayed a troubling unpredictability. On Monday, he insisted Iran must return to the negotiating table without delay. Yet by Tuesday, his rhetoric had sharpened dramatically. A ceasefire, he declared, was no longer enough, and he now sought a “real end” to the conflict.
“I’m not looking for a ceasefire. We’re looking at better than a ceasefire,” he said, adding that he wanted a “complete give-up” by Iran.
His words, devoid of specifics, opened a wide field of interpretation.
Among the more ominous interpretations is the suggestion that the US administration, under the sway of Israeli strategic thinking, has come to view the current moment as a rare and historic opportunity to reshape Iran entirely.
The belief appears to be taking root in Washington that the conditions are finally ripe for regime change and that such a window, once closed, may not soon open again. If this is indeed the path being pursued, the consequences would reshape the Middle East for generations.
The groundwork is unmistakably being laid for that goal. On Tuesday, Trump stated on his Truth Social social network that he had not initiated any form of contact with Iran regarding peace negotiations, emphasising that he had done so in “no way, shape, or form”.
He added pointedly that Iran “should have taken the deal that was on the table.”
He also dismissed the testimony of US National Intelligence Director Tulsi Gabbard, who told lawmakers in March that US intelligence agencies did not assess Iran to be actively developing a nuclear weapon.
Trump bluntly countered her assessment, saying “I don’t care what she said. I think they were very close to having it.”
Yet, in the days leading up to Israel’s attacks on Iran, a viable window for a nuclear accord emerged. The proposed agreement addressed virtually every concern long held by the West. It would have capped Iran’s uranium enrichment at three per cent, well below weapons-grade thresholds.
Existing stockpiles of highly enriched uranium were to be transferred abroad, most likely to Russia, while Iran’s nuclear facilities would come under significantly enhanced international oversight.
It was, by all accounts, a textbook case of how diplomacy in the service of non-proliferation is meant to function. Iranian officials, including Ali Shamkhani, a senior adviser to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and Iran’s lead nuclear negotiator, publicly affirmed the country’s readiness to sign.
In one of his final interviews, Shamkhani made clear that Iran stood poised to finalise the agreement immediately.
Instead, the moment was lost, overtaken by a war that could reshape not only the map of the Middle East, but also the global balance between the Western powers, on the one hand, and China and Russia on the other.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu emphasised the broader implications of the conflict, hinting at a strategic transformation in the region.
“We are changing the face of the Middle East. These developments may even bring about profound changes within Iran itself,” he stated on Monday.
DECAPITATION STRATEGY: In the initial wave of Israeli airstrikes on Iran, Shamkhani was mortally wounded, joining a growing list of high-ranking Iranian officials targeted in the opening barrage.
These early attacks struck with precision and purpose, aimed not just at infrastructure, but at the very leadership of Iran.
The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has confirmed the killing of several of its top intelligence and military leaders, including Major-General Hossein Salami, commander-in-chief of the Revolutionary Guard; Major-General Mohammad Bagheri, chief of staff of the Iranian Armed Forces; Major-General Gholam Ali Rashid, commander of Khatam Al-Anbia Central Headquarters; and renowned nuclear scientists Mohammad Mehdi Tehranchi and Fereydoun Abbasi, among many other high-ranking military commanders and nuclear experts.
On Tuesday, Israel announced that it had assassinated Ali Shadmani, the newly appointed chief of staff of the Iranian Armed Forces.
The assassination of numerous senior Iranian military and intelligence leaders within a matter of days marks a profound moment of crisis for Iran’s leadership. For Khamenei, the losses are both institutional and personal. These men were not only commanders; many had stood by him for decades, forming a core circle of trusted allies who shaped the ideological and strategic direction of Iran.
The events of recent days have left an indelible mark on Khamenei, one whose significance cannot be overstated. Since the 2020 assassination of Qassem Suleimani, the formidable Al-Quds Force commander and one of the Supreme Leader’s most trusted confidants, Khamenei has watched as those central to Iran’s regional ambitions and domestic stability have been systematically removed from the board.
Now, with his senior command structure abruptly hollowed out, urgent questions emerge about continuity, internal resilience, trust, and whether their successors can truly fill the void.
This profound disruption threatens to redefine not only Khamenei’s own calculus but also the very trajectory of Iran as it navigates the most perilous waters since 1979.
A reformist Iranian politician closely aligned with President Masoud Pezeshkian revealed to Al-Ahram Weekly that Tehran had long understood Israel’s intention to derail the nuclear negotiations with the US and initiate a military offensive.
Yet, even with such forewarning, he conceded that the magnitude and ferocity of the Israeli assault, particularly the targeted assassinations of senior Iranian military, intelligence, and nuclear figures, far exceeded the worst expectations.
He placed the blame squarely on the shoulders of the West, accusing it of enabling Israel’s actions through silence and complicity. “Israel committed every crime it wished in Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria without facing condemnation or constraint. Netanyahu took this indifference as a silent green light,” he said.
“Since Friday, the West has repeated the same shameful refrain – that Israel has the right to defend itself even though it was the aggressor. But we will defend our sovereignty and interests whatever the cost.”
The pretext of averting an Iranian nuclear threat, citing Israeli security concerns as justification for a pre-emptive strike, has grown increasingly unconvincing since Friday.
First, the idea of completely dismantling Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, especially its deeply fortified underground facilities, is unrealistic without substantial American military involvement.
Second, such an attack may well prove counterproductive, potentially driving Iran to covertly develop a nuclear deterrent as a means of ensuring its survival. And third, a nuclear agreement aimed at preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon was on the verge of completion just days before the assault.
According to Iranian diplomatic sources speaking to the Weekly, a meeting in Oman scheduled for last Sunday between Shamkhani and US Envoy Steve Witkoff was intended to finalise the deal.
“This is not merely a campaign against weapons. It is a campaign against the Iranian state itself,” Iranian sources stated.
In a pointed statement, Netanyahu seemed once again to hint at the possible targeting of Iran’s Supreme Leader in a dramatic move to produce a shock-and-awe effect and to create a power vacuum at the head of the Iranian regime.
“I will not disclose our operational plans publicly,” he said on Monday. “But we will do whatever is required.” He went on to suggest that military action could ultimately lead to the collapse of the Iranian regime.
Netanyahu appears to believe that assassinating Khamenei would bring an end to the war and resolve the broader regional conflict. His strategy rests on a dangerously reductive premise: that decapitating Iran’s political, military, and intelligence leadership would throw the country into disarray, spark widespread unrest, and embolden opposition forces to topple the regime.
According to this logic, chaos would serve as the catalyst for regime collapse. In the resulting power vacuum, Western policymakers hope they could swiftly install an alternative, perhaps the exiled son of the former Shah or another figure from the Iranian diaspora.
They envision this new leadership garnering domestic, regional, and international legitimacy, thus stabilising Iran under a pro-Western order.
But this vision bears little resemblance to the complex realities on the ground. Iran’s governing structure is not built around a single man, although this is what many officials in the West like to repeat. Its security and intelligence institutions are deeply entrenched and institutionalised, resilient enough to withstand the loss of individual leaders.
The idea that leadership decapitation would bring about swift collapse ignores the historical and structural strength of the Iranian state apparatus.
Moreover, the notion that ordinary Iranians would rise en masse in such a moment is equally flawed. The regional precedents, particularly in Iraq and Syria, offer grim warnings. Rather than peaceful transition, those nations descended into violence and fragmentation. Iran, with its ethnic and religious diversity and political divides, could face a similar or even worse fate.
Yet, Netanyahu has been explicit in his aims, publicly calling on Iranians to rise up against the regime. His words, coupled with widespread strikes on military and civilian institutions, reveal a calculated effort to engineer collapse from within.
DEFIANCE: Many Iranians remain defiant. Bahar, a literature professor in Tehran and veteran of both the 2009 Green Movement and the 2021 Mahsa Amini protests, dismissed the campaign as “a losing bet.”
Foreign bombs, she argues, will not bring revolution. “Iranians will not overthrow their government at the behest of foreign tanks,” she told the Weekly.
Yet, beneath this defiance lies a deepening anxiety. Iran’s internal fabric, woven from ethnic, sectarian, and regional complexities, is susceptible to rupture. Prolonged conflict may stir latent fractures.
Years of punishing sanctions have already stoked alienation among minorities and marginalised populations. Israel appears to be gambling that this discontent, magnified by military and economic chaos, could ultimately crack the regime from within.
Despite the intensity of the offensive, regime change remains a complex and uncertain task. The decisive factors lie not only in Tehran or Tel Aviv but also in Washington, Beijing, and Moscow.
If the US and Israel move to change the regime in Iran, Russia and China are unlikely to stand by passively. For both powers, Iran is more than a partner; it is a strategic pillar in their efforts to counterbalance Western dominance. A Western-backed regime in Tehran would not only dismantle an anti-Western stronghold but also severely undermine Russian and Chinese geopolitical, military, and economic interests.
First, Iran is a crucial ally in the emerging multipolar world order championed by both Moscow and Beijing. Militarily, Iran and Russia have forged a deep strategic partnership over the past decade. Tehran supplies Russia with military hardware such as drones, while Russia assists Iran with missile technology and air-defence systems.
If Iran were to fall into the Western sphere of influence, Moscow would lose one of its most reliable regional partners, and NATO would gain a major foothold near Russia’s southern flank, an unacceptable outcome from the Kremlin’s perspective.
China, meanwhile, sees Iran as a vital node in its Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). Geographically positioned as a bridge between East Asia, Central Asia, and the Middle East, Iran serves as a key transit route for Chinese infrastructure, trade, and energy flows. In 2021, China signed a 25-year cooperation agreement with Iran worth $400 billion, which includes massive Chinese investment in Iranian energy, telecommunications, transportation, and banking.
A pro-Western government in Tehran could jeopardise this entire framework either by pulling out of the agreement or by reorienting Iran’s economy towards the West.
Energy is another domain where the Iranian alignment matters deeply to both Russia and China. Iran holds the world’s fourth-largest proven oil reserves and second-largest natural gas reserves. Both Moscow and Beijing benefit from Iran’s independence from Western oil markets.
From the perspectives of Moscow and Beijing, regime change in Iran would not merely represent a regional shift, it would be a strategic catastrophe. It would hand the West control over Iran’s immense natural resources, unravel years of careful alignment, and potentially create a hostile government that could serve US military and intelligence interests on Russia’s and China’s periphery.
Neither power is likely to allow such a scenario to unfold without a significant political, or even military, response.
Yet, both powers have demonstrated puzzling inertia in mobilising meaningful support for their beleaguered ally. While paying lip service to mediation, neither Moscow nor Beijing has mustered the diplomatic initiative to restrain Washington or Tel Aviv from escalating hostilities in a paralysis that grows more conspicuous by the hour.
Meanwhile, the US accelerates towards confrontation with alarming velocity. Evidently swayed by hawkish advisers, Trump appears convinced that America might secure windfall geopolitical gains from Iran’s internal collapse, achieving through chaos what decades of sanctions could not: regime change without direct intervention.
This widening chasm between the glacial hesitancy of the Eastern powers and the reckless momentum of the Western ones threatens to redraw not just the Middle Eastern order, but the contours of global power for generations.
The stakes could scarcely be higher: as Beijing and Moscow dither, Washington and Tel Aviv are racing to unmake a nation.
Meanwhile, Europe is increasingly alarmed by the escalating conflict between Iran and Israel. This powder keg risks exploding with global consequences, further diverting attention from the genocidal war in Gaza.
Many European governments may hesitate to endorse a forced regime change in Iran orchestrated by Israel and the US, fearing the profound and destabilising repercussions such an intervention could unleash. A sudden collapse of the regional order may trigger a surge in irregular migration towards Europe, intensifying existing social and political strains.
Moreover, the ensuing chaos could create a permissive environment for Israel to advance its plans to displace the Palestinians from Gaza, a scenario that would deepen regional unrest and provoke international outrage.
Emily Thornberry, a British MP and former Shadow Attorney General for England and Wales, has warned against escalating violence in the Middle East. She told the Weekly that Israel is not achieving a decisive victory and cautioned the US administration against yielding to renewed calls for deeper military involvement.
“Israel is not winning. Trump must not cave to new demands for help,” she said. Her remarks underscore a broader European unease with the course of events and the potential for miscalculation.
Yet, despite these concerns, the European powers remain hesitant and often paralysed by diplomatic caution. Like Russia and China, Europe has been slow to respond, though perhaps even more troubling is its tendency to follow Washington’s lead rather than carve out an independent stance.
Thus, the Israeli war on Iran is far more than a bilateral conflict. It is the catalyst for a sweeping reconfiguration of the Middle East with potentially irreversible consequences. As Iran, the backbone of the so-called “axis of resistance,” faces the threat of collapse or transformation into a pro-Western regime, the regional balance that has long countered Israeli and Western dominance would disintegrate.
In such a vacuum, Israel could pursue its long-standing ambitions with little resistance, including the displacement of the Palestinians and territorial expansion beyond historic Palestine. For the Arab world, this would mark a historic unravelling – a collapse of strategic parity, the fragmentation of regional solidarity, and the eclipse of any hope for a just and equitable order.
* A version of this article appears in print in the 19 June, 2025 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly
Short link: