Fact Check: "Israeli strikes aim for regime change, not just nuclear destruction."
What We Know
In June 2025, Israel conducted a series of airstrikes targeting Iran's nuclear facilities, which included significant attacks on key sites such as Natanz and Fordow. These strikes were characterized by Israeli officials as necessary to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons, which they claimed posed an imminent threat to Israel's survival (Brookings, AP News). However, reports indicate that the strikes also aimed to eliminate high-ranking military leaders and disrupt Iran's military capabilities, suggesting a broader strategic objective beyond just nuclear disarmament (Brookings, Foreign Policy).
Israeli National Security Advisor Tzachi Hanegbi acknowledged that military strikes alone would not suffice to completely dismantle Iran's nuclear program. Instead, he indicated that the ultimate goal was to pressure Iran into negotiations that would lead to the dismantling of its nuclear capabilities (Brookings). This aligns with the view that regime change might be seen as a more effective long-term solution to the perceived threat from Iran, as it could potentially lead to a government less inclined towards nuclear armament (The Conversation, Rolling Stone).
Analysis
The claim that Israeli strikes aim for regime change, not just nuclear destruction, is supported by several credible sources. The Brookings analysis suggests that while the immediate military objectives included degrading Iran's nuclear capabilities, there was also a significant focus on decapitating Iran's military leadership, which indicates an intent to destabilize the current regime (Brookings). Furthermore, the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has articulated dual war aims: to destroy Iran's nuclear program and to achieve regime change (The Conversation).
However, the effectiveness of such military strategies in achieving regime change is debated. Analysts argue that airstrikes alone are unlikely to bring about a change in government, as historical precedents show that regime change is complex and often requires more than military intervention (Foreign Policy). Additionally, the potential for backlash from a weakened Iran could lead to increased hostility and further conflict in the region, complicating the situation (Reuters).
While the sources discussing the strikes are generally credible, it is essential to recognize that some may carry inherent biases. For instance, analyses from think tanks like Brookings and Foreign Policy may reflect specific geopolitical perspectives, which could influence their interpretations of Israel's motives.
Conclusion
The claim that "Israeli strikes aim for regime change, not just nuclear destruction" is Partially True. Evidence supports the notion that while the immediate focus of the strikes was on Iran's nuclear capabilities, there was also a significant underlying objective of destabilizing the Iranian regime. However, the complexity of achieving regime change through military means and the potential for unintended consequences suggest that this goal may not be easily attainable through airstrikes alone.
Sources
- Israel strikes Iran. What happens next? - Brookings
- World braces for Iran's response to US strikes - Reuters
- Israel strikes Iran's nuclear sites and kills top generals - AP News
- Cineast
- Netanyahu has two war aims: destroying Iran's nuclear program and - The Conversation
- Nuclear Fears Become a Call for Regime Change in Iran - Rolling Stone
- U.S., Israel Attack Iranian Nuclear Targets—The Damage - CFR
- Israel's Iran Strikes Are About Regime Change, Not Nuclear Weapons - Foreign Policy
