Toppling the Iranian Regime: A Project to Reshape the Middle East

Dr Mayada Siwar Al-Dahab

It is no longer possible to interpret the escalation between Israel and Iran as merely a limited military confrontation or an attempt to dismantle Iran’s nuclear programme. What has gradually emerged — and been articulated by Netanyahu himself — is a broader strategic project: the overthrow of the Iranian regime as a gateway to reshaping the Middle East in accordance with a new balance of power championed by Israel.

Targeting the leadership structure, sovereign institutions, and decision-making centres indicates an attempt to strike at the head of a hierarchical regime. Such a strategy aims to weaken the leadership and trigger gradual fragmentation within the state’s core institutions.

Yet regimes are not toppled by air power alone. Accordingly, two parallel tracks appear to be in motion: targeting the economic infrastructure to increase the regime’s vulnerability, and destabilising the domestic arena in order to strip the system of its legitimacy.

The objective is not direct military victory, but rather paralysing the regime’s capacity to govern and generating internal upheaval that would render its collapse inevitable.

A particularly telling indicator is the retreat of Iran’s regional allies. Tehran’s long-standing proxy warfare strategy — which for decades provided it with strategic depth — appears, at least in this phase of the conflict, less capable of effective response. This exposes the Iranian regime to more direct strikes and limits its ability to widen the theatre of confrontation.

Israel, for its part, seeks to redraw the region’s geopolitical map. Removing Iran as a regional power would eliminate the last strategic rival capable of posing an existential threat to Israel, paving the way for a new Middle East in which Israel assumes a leading role and the balance of power is reconfigured.

The United States does not oppose recalibrating regional equilibrium, so long as it curbs Iranian influence and strengthens its allies’ security. The apparent division of roles between Washington and Tel Aviv suggests a long-term strategic design.

The Gulf states reject becoming a battlefield or a scapegoat. At the same time, they are acutely aware that any Iranian escalation — particularly in the Strait of Hormuz or the Red Sea — would place them at the centre of the confrontation. Simultaneously, the potential threat of future Israeli expansionism may prompt Gulf states to formulate new regional security arrangements.

The greatest danger lies not in the war itself, but in its aftermath. The fall of a regional power such as Iran could create a geopolitical vacuum and instability stretching from the Gulf to the Mediterranean. Recent history demonstrates that dismantling states rarely produces security or stability; rather, it often reproduces patterns of chaos across the region.

Nevertheless, the logic of power continues to prevail, with little heed paid to the lessons of history. The current war is not fundamentally about a nuclear programme or ballistic missiles, but about a larger question: who will draw the map of the next Middle East?

The region stands at a pivotal moment that may reshape it for decades to come. What is unfolding today is not merely a military confrontation, but a struggle over the form of the coming Middle East — one that could lead to prolonged instability affecting all, without exception.

Shortlink: https://sudanhorizon.com/?p=11761