If the Ayatollahs Are Overthrown, What Is Next for Israel and Iran?

If the Iranian regime does fall — what happens next? Will Iran return to the peaceful history of its past, or will more chaos ensue?

History offers both warning and hope.

In ancient Persia under King Ahasuerus, a decree was issued by Haman to annihilate the Jewish people. Haman’s hatred was not casual prejudice. It was genocidal policy. Yet through courage, strategy, and unity, Queen Esther exposed the plot. The Jews were granted the right to defend themselves and survived what was meant to be their destruction. Purim became a celebration not only of survival, but of clarity in the face of existential threat.

Israel’s modern reality is not ancient Persia, but the echoes are unmistakable. Since 1979, the Islamic Republic of Iran has built its regional strategy around encircling Israel with armed proxies. Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad in Gaza, Shiite militias in Syria and Iraq, and the Houthis in Yemen have all received Iranian funding, training, and weaponry. Tehran’s leaders have repeatedly called for Israel’s elimination while advancing a nuclear program that has alarmed the international community for decades.

A regime change in Iran would therefore reverberate far beyond Tehran. But we must be realistic. Regimes can fall quickly. Narratives do not.

Decades of indoctrination inside Iran have portrayed Israel as a cosmic enemy. Beyond Iran, global discourse has increasingly cast Israel as uniquely malevolent, often divorced from context. Social media accelerates outrage while compressing history into slogans. Complex security dilemmas are flattened into caricature. Millions form hardened opinions about a country they have never visited, about a conflict they have never studied in depth.

A post revolutionary Iran would not automatically translate into pro-Israel sentiment. Prejudice rarely evaporates with a leadership change. If peace between the two countries is to be more than a pause between conflicts, it must be built deliberately.

So what are the realistic pathways?

First, intellectual honesty about history. The Jewish connection to the land of Israel is ancient and continuous. Archaeology, historical texts, and liturgy testify to a people whose national and spiritual identity is rooted in Jerusalem and the broader land. Recognizing Jewish indigeneity reframes the debate from colonial accusation to national self determination. Education systems across the region would need to replace erasure with acknowledgment. That is not a concession. It is a prerequisite for coexistence.

Second, regional integration based on shared interests. The Abraham Accords demonstrated that longstanding hostility is not immutable. Economic cooperation, technological exchange, and security coordination between Israel and several Arab states have already produced tangible benefits. Trade has expanded. Tourism has grown. Joint ventures in renewable energy, water technology, and cyber defense are underway. A future Iran that abandons revolutionary maximalism could, in theory, plug into the same architecture of mutual benefit.

Third, economic normalization as a stabilizing force. Iran possesses immense human capital, natural resources, and strategic geography. Israel is a global leader in innovation, from agricultural technology to medical research and cybersecurity. Interdependence raises the cost of conflict. When prosperity is tied to stability, the incentive structure shifts away from confrontation.

Fourth, people to people engagement. Hatred thrives in abstraction. It weakens in proximity. Academic exchanges, cultural dialogue, and civil society partnerships can humanize what propaganda has dehumanized. The Iranian people have repeatedly demonstrated courage in protesting repression. Many distinguish between political opposition to their rulers and personal animosity toward Jews. Those spaces of nuance must be widened.

And yet, realism demands humility. Human nature contains rivalry as well as compassion. The 20th century, despite unprecedented technological progress, produced unparalleled destruction. The hope that humanity will transcend conflict entirely has so far proven elusive. Peace may not be an eternal state. It may be episodic and fragile.

That does not render it meaningless.

Israel does not aspire to endless war. It aspires to secure sovereignty in its ancestral homeland. It aspires to raise children without air raid sirens and to innovate without existential distraction.

If change comes in Tehran, it will open a door. Whether that door leads to durable coexistence depends on choices made not only by leaders, but by societies willing to confront myths and abandon absolutism.

Peace may never be permanent. But it can be extended. It can be strengthened. And in a region too accustomed to despair, even incremental light after darkness is worth striving for.

Sabine Sterk is the CEO of Time To Stand Up For Israel.