Regime change in Iran by the Western powers, particularly the US and Israel, is not a new concept; it is rather a project persisted long since decades. From the very beginning, it was obvious that the Israeli-Iran war tended to be a regime change plan rather than the so-called preemptive nuclear weapon destruction. It is, in fact, the strategic miscalculations of the Western Powers that have yet to unleash constant terrible costs and consequences on Middle Eastern and Asian countries.

What the West and the more radical war-monger elements in the U.S. did in prodding Israel into this war was to push for “regime change” in Iran. This was very evident from an in-depth look at their rhetoric, coupled with the media campaigns that spread across Western mainstream media.

The assassination of Iran’s ruling class and its top military leaders as a target in the initial stages of the war was actually a joint effort supported by the allies and carried out by Israel. The plan included escalation of domestic violent attacks, continued efforts in sabotage, and provoking further internal upheavals, all of which were intended to make the uncontrolled consequences perpetual. A broader analysis of what the British, French, and German spokespersons said at the onset of the war indicates that Israel’s actions not only had the approval of the United States but also were carefully coordinated with the Western states and most likely with NATO as well. The central objective of the effort was to destabilize the Iranian government and to create internal chaos and conflict, which ultimately would bring about full-scale internal fragmentation and the collapse of the country.

Despite the deep and unexpected consequences felt in the first few hours of the Israeli attack, which left Iran in a state of shake and shock, the country’s leaders quickly restored their synergy, resolved their challenges, organized their military forces, and prepared to carry out appropriate countermeasures.

The situation quickly shifted to what surprised all, including Western countries: a united national stance and coordinated reaction both from inside the country and worldwide in response to the aggression, marked by a massive missile and drone attack against Israel, leading to widespread destruction of its infrastructure and economic system. Iranians united across the country and pledged for resilience and resistance against an aggressor who had already been labeled on Iranian media as “the Middle East Butcher”.

For the Iranian population, it was extremely obvious that an invasion led by a foreign regime with a record of war crimes, genocide and unprecedented violence against Palestinian children would never lead to liberation or democratic establishment in Iran.

Even those Iranian nationals who had previously rigorously opposed the Islamic Republic policies and called into question in their open forums, including prominent thinkers like Abdolkarim Soroush and Mohsen Kadivar, adopted “a staunch defense of Iran”, which never existed before. Mossad intelligence networks responsible for widespread damage from inside the country were abruptly dissolved and their agents were arrested. The regime change project failed once again.

Following the failure of the regime change attempt as a plan (A), they took an alternative aggressive stance, handing out a series of frequent ultimatums, hinting at the assassination of Iran’s leader.

With the ultimatums having failed to produce the desired reaction, they switched to issuing a decisive scaring ultimatum calling for Iran’s “unconditional surrender”. It, though, didn’t work. By recognizing the futility of such an approach in its entirety, the team gave up their initial plan, which was later replaced with a plan (B). While public life in Iran was going relatively normal, the leading objective of the Western parties involved at this point was to forge a methodical withdrawal that guarantees the salvage of Netanyahu and Israelis from a hole dig by them, who were in hiding undergrounds for more than a week as well as preventing further economic damage to global economy. Only a strategically timed military action by the US aimed at Iran’s nuclear facilities had the potential to offer a temporary solution to the ongoing concerns. For Iran, although this end led to terrible loss and destruction, the Islamic Republic regime grabbed further strength, re-established its social foundation, and reproduced its national position, portraying the only regional superpower capable of defending Iran’s key interests and posing a significant threat to any foreign aggressor.

The economic and logistical implications of this war have strong impacts not only on Iran and Israel but also on the West and the United States, as supporters of Israel. Only the daily costs of Israeli attacks on Iran exceeded seven hundred million dollars, excluding the vast destruction left by Iranian bombardments and missile hits, life losses, and an absolute economic shutdown. 

It is very clear that Netanyahu’s actions were driven by his Western allies, as prospects of a positive outcome in regime change in Iran, which most likely urged him to take this specific approach. Now, obviously, he is the one who has suffered a setback in this case, with great loss and no significant achievement. On the contrary, the Islamic Republic repaired its institutional fraction, rebuilt its national position, and acquired further country-wide support. In the immediate future, it seems likely that Netanyahu will be forced to sign a ceasefire agreement with Hamas as well. That will be good news. No matter what the underlying motivations are, the cessation of conflict and the stop of violence and bloodshed in the region are an unequivocally positive development.

Click the share button below to email/forward this article. Follow us on Instagram and X and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost Global Research articles with proper attribution. 

Amin Arman is a researcher in exile and a doctoral candidate at the Institute for Research on Migration, Ethnicity, and Society, Department of Culture and Society at Linköping University in Sweden and was teaching law in Afghanistan before the collapse of the former government in August 2021.

Global Research is a reader-funded media. We do not accept any funding from corporations or governments. Help us stay afloat. Click the image below to make a one-time or recurring donation.

Source link