Iran’s Future Remains Uncertain With (or Without) Regime Change

Strategic Goals of Iran Campaign

The ongoing military campaign, jointly initiated by Israel and the United States to weaken and dismantle Iran’s offensive capabilities, has revived discussions about Iran’s future. Codenamed Roaring Lion by the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) and Epic Fury by the U.S., these operations in their initial phase posed significant political and military challenges and setbacks to the Islamic Republic, especially following the assassination of the long-serving Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

The primary goals of the joint military operation seem to be the destruction of Iran’s nuclear, ballistic missile, and drone capabilities as part of an overall strategy to degrade the Iranian threat. The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Dan Caine, told a press briefing on March 2 that part of the mission is intended to hinder Iran’s capacity to exert influence beyond its borders; in other words, to prevent power projection and expansionism. Iran’s regional expansionism via proxy warfare has, for decades, fueled instability and caused bloodshed, tearing countries into failed states. Its nuclear program was considered the final strategic component to achieve an Iran-centric regional order and to protect Iran – as a nuclear power – from direct attack. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated that the goal of Operation Epic Fury is to destroy Iran’s short-range ballistic missile and manufacturing capabilities as well as its navy, and that regime change is not the primary goal, though it will be welcome if it happens. Despite initially announcing the goal of the operation as bringing “freedom” to Iran, U.S. President Donald Trump made the degradation and destruction of the Iranian ballistic missile capabilities and the missile program a primary objective. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu outlined the removal of Iran’s nuclear and ballistic threats and destruction of those capabilities as the main goal for Operation Roaring Lion, though regime collapse as a result of the mission is a welcome scenario for Israel. The removal of the regime and the creation of a fertile environment on the ground for a popular uprising appear to be part of the Israeli rationale for the operation. This is being carried out by targeting the coercive apparatus of the Iranian state, including the police, IRGC, and Basij paramilitary HQs and centers in various cities, particularly in the capital Tehran, which Israeli PM Netanyahu describes as “breaking the bones of the regime”. In a message to the Iranian people, Netanyahu called on them to seize the opportunity that would soon arrive and take matters into their own hands. In other words, regime change remains a desired goal, though it is not classified as the main objective of the joint operations; whether the regime is changed by a popular uprising or not, it is something that ultimately will be decided by the Iranian people.

Iranian retaliation by subjecting neighboring countries to missile and drone attacks, particularly daily attacks on the Gulf Arab states, the unprovoked drone strikes on Azerbaijan’s Nakhchivan exclave, and missile strikes on Turkey, once again confirms that the removal or degradation of Iran’s offensive missile and drone capabilities is in the interests of Iran’s neighbors first and foremost. However, the killing of the Supreme Leader of Iran, who shaped the country’s strategic decision-making and direction since 1989, will define both this military campaign and the future of Iran.

Death of Khamenei: End of an Era

Ayatollah Khamenei, who oversaw Iran’s foreign and security policies and was regarded as the ultimate decision-maker in Tehran’s power structure, represented the Islamic Republic and its regional strategies. Khamenei aimed to establish an Iran-centric regional geopolitical order and played a crucial role in the country’s expansionist goals, serving as both an ideological and financial supporter of Iran’s foreign policy instruments, often referred to as proxies or forward defense assets. He was a key proponent of the Iranian nuclear program and viewed himself as a person on a mission dedicated to the expansionist objectives of the Islamic Revolution and the longevity of the Velyati-Fagih system. No doubt, the assassination of Khamenei will significantly influence Iran’s future, especially as the country is grappling with both external and internal pressures. The most recent challenge has been the popular uprising that began at the end of December, which Khamenei ordered to be violently suppressed, resulting in the deaths of thousands of innocent protesters calling for change. Analyzing this situation from a neoclassical realist perspective, Iran faces external and internal challenges linked to geopolitical shifts following the Hamas attacks on Israel on October 7. The following challenges can be seen as intervening variables: the setbacks to Tehran’s forward defense assets, including Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, and the Assad regime in Syria; Israel’s operation Rising Lion in June 2025; Iran’s deepening economic decline, exacerbated by the stringent U.S. sanctions; and growing domestic dissatisfaction with the overall direction of the country. These intervening variables translated into the street protests and subsequent crackdown on civilians, and fractured the Islamic Republic’s legitimacy. This should have had an impact on its foreign policy, but Khamenei’s defiance continued. His departure now raises the main question: What will Iran’s future be?

Shaky Succession and Political Uncertainty 

The selection of Ayatollah Khamenei’s son, Mojtaba Khamenei, as Iran’s new Supreme Leader by the Assembly of Experts in the midst of the war indicates that the primary goal is to ensure the survival of the Islamic Republic. The succession of Mojtaba Khamenei essentially turns the Islamic Republic into a dynastic theocracy, despite the Islamic Revolution’s leader, Ayatollah Khomeini’s, harsh stance against the hereditary ruling system of the Shah. The reports indicate that the new Supreme Leader’s election by the Assembly of Experts was largely influenced by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), which has been primarily running the country since the decapitation of the Iranian leadership, including Ali Khamenei, on February 28. Within the Islamic Republic leadership, Ali Larijani, secretary of the Supreme National Security Council of Iran, who has been branded the “de facto” leader alongside Mohammad Bagher Ghalibaf, the current speaker of parliament, play central roles, including in the election of the new Supreme Leader. The prevalent notion among many Iran observers that the Islamic Republic would collapse if Ayatollah Ali Khamenei were eliminated has turned out to be a false assumption. The spotlight is now on Mojtaba Khamenei, who largely remained in the shadows. He acted as a key political aide for his father and is known to have close ties to Iran’s proxies, known as the  “Axis of Resistance” leaders. It can be assumed that his role in running Iran in recent years has been growing in the shadows as part of the succession plans. This might explain why, despite the significant blow to the Iranian regime following the killing of Ali Khamenei, the system remains intact and consolidated, with the IRGC, Larijani, and Ghalibaf playing crucial roles in the Iranian power structure. If Mojtaba Khamenei survives the war and the regime remains in place, he will inherit a devastated country with military, economic, social, environmental, and civic rights problems, which can be solved only if the Islamic Republic undergoes radical reforms. It is clear that unless the Iranian regime initiates a radical reform program, there will be popular uprisings in the future, and the regime is likely to continue its track record of massacring protesters. This means that even if the war concludes with a ceasefire or subsequent agreement, the bloodshed of Iranian civilians will continue in the absence of reforms under the new Supreme Leader.

What Are the Future Possibilities for Iranians? 

The future for Iranians is difficult to predict, whatever the outcome of the U.S.-Israeli operations. If the Islamic Republic continues to exist, the future presents the Iranian people with a limited number of stark options, all difficult and expensive. One option is to endure the current situation without any alterations, leading to gradual suffocation due to oppression, economic decline, and environmental degradation. Many Iranians already feel they are living inside that scenario. An alternative approach is to hope for reform from the inside, led by pragmatists who might emerge, that will provide economic relief while maintaining the ideological foundation of power. At the moment, this appears highly unlikely and uncertain, though it is the least disruptive option. A third path is prolonged protests that fracture elite unity and force structural change. This is the most dangerous route, but also the one history associates with real transformation. The slogans heard today across Iran suggest many have already crossed that line. Then there is the false promise of salvation offered by the restoration of the old symbols and supposed strongmen such as Reza Pahlavi. For large parts of Iran’s non-Persian population, this would not be liberation but a return to a different form of erasure. The past, they insist, is not the future. What ultimately confronts Iranians is not merely a choice between rulers, but between fear and agency. When fear stops working when economic despair, environmental ruin, and moral exhaustion outweigh repression, then systems that appear immovable are suddenly immovable no longer. Iran is approaching that threshold. What comes next will depend less on ideology or geopolitics than on whether ordinary people decide that survival is no longer enough – and that dignity is worth the risk.

The post Iran’s Future Remains Uncertain With (or Without) Regime Change appeared first on Small Wars Journal by Arizona State University.