Udi Evental

"When you have to topple, topple, don't talk" The man who promised us “total victory” in Gaza and “voluntary migration” that would make the problem in the Strip disappear has now come up with a new magic formula for eliminating the Iranian nuclear threat once and for all: regime change. At the graduation ceremony for an officers’ course at the IDF’s Officer Training School (Bahad 1) this week, Netanyahu declared: “Mojtaba Khamenei has released the safety catch, and Iran is once again trying to develop its bombs of death. There is only one way to eliminate this threat once and for all: to topple the regime in Iran. And that is my directive to the IDF, Mossad, and the security services.” Netanyahu’s declarations after Operation Rising Lion that “we have eliminated the nuclear threat” and “achieved a historic victory that will endure for generations” have not aged well. Even the historic achievement of bringing the United States into the campaign during Operation Roaring Lion - after we had repeatedly been told that only the Americans possessed the military capabilities needed to put an end to Iran’s nuclear program - proved insufficient. But hey, there is a solution: let's topple the regime. Let's set aside for a moment the fact that I have opposed the regime-change strategy for years [link below]. The greatest blow to the prospects of such a strategy succeeding - and one that also intensifies the current Iranian threat - is publicly declaring the objective of overthrowing the regime. We already have a recent case study in this regard: Operation Roaring Lion, whose objective was to overthrow and replace the Iranian regime. Let's take a retrospective look at the problems this explicitly stated objective created during the war: A. It allowed the Iranian regime to claim victory simply by virtue of having survived the war. B. It pushed the regime into an existential, back-against-the-wall struggle, undermined its confidence in negotiations with the United States, and prompted it to consider acquiring nuclear weapons as an insurance policy for its survival and as a means of deterring Israel and the United States from attacking it again. Beyond the frequent statements recently by official and semi-official figures in Tehran about the need to acquire nuclear weapons, we are now told, unsurprisingly, about troubling developments in this regard. Moreover, to this day, the regime refuses to engage in substantive negotiations over a nuclear agreement, presumably because it sees little point in reaching agreements with those seeking to overthrow it. Netanyahu, for his part, opposes any nuclear agreement with Iran, arguing that it would release funds and resources to the regime and thereby undermine efforts to bring about its downfall. It is far from certain that he is right. First, the structural deficiencies and weaknesses in Iran's economy, economic sectors, and infrastructure are so severe that it is by no means clear that an influx of resources would enable the regime to rehabilitate them quickly. Second, a population struggling to meet its basic needs and simply keep its head above water does not launch revolutions. Indeed, the 2017–2018 protests in Iran erupted after the United States had lifted the heavy sanctions on Iran following the 2015 nuclear agreement. C. It tied up intelligence and firepower resources during the war without any realistic prospect of achieving the objective. At a certain point, the United States, followed by Israel, abandoned the goal of toppling the regime during the war. It was reported that the IDF scaled back its strikes against the Basij and shifted its focus to Iranian military infrastructure. D. It created tensions with the US administration and seriously damaged Israel's standing in the United States, amid accusations that Israel had dragged America into a war based on an illusion. Now, according to reports, Trump is considering a short war against Iran to persuade the regime to return to substantive negotiations over a comprehensive agreement, including on the nuclear issue. In other words, there is a gap between Netanyahu's and Trump's objectives for the war. To sum up, publicly threatening to overthrow the Iranian regime only encourages it to dig in, strengthen its mechanisms of domestic repression, tighten its grip on the country, resist any nuclear agreement - which currently represents a more realistic alternative for delaying Iran's nuclear armament over the long term - and consider moving forward with the development of nuclear weapons, assuming such a decision has not already been made without our knowledge. If you genuinely want efforts to overthrow the regime to be effective, the last thing you should do is announce them publicly. On the contrary, you should remain silent and even deny that such efforts are underway. Because the driving force behind domestic protests against the regime must come from within Iran, overt foreign intervention can only undermine them. Do what needs to be done, but quietly and covertly, to create better conditions for the Iranian people (access to the internet, for example) when they decide to take to the streets again. The bottom line: Public declarations of a regime-change policy undermine the very objective they are intended to advance, while pushing the Iranian regime in dangerous directions - that might materialize before regime change takes place in Iran. Netanyahu undoubtedly knows all of this. But for a long time now, his political interests have clearly taken precedence over Israel's security and national interests. Get out and vote! Shabbat Shalom #IranWar‌