OPINION:
The escalating conflict between Iran and Israel has reached a critical juncture, marked by a series of high-profile killings and retaliatory strikes. Israel’s targeting of Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh in Tehran and Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah in Lebanon provoked Iran to launch over 180 ballistic missiles at Israeli targets.
Israel countered with airstrikes on Iranian military sites, crippling key infrastructure and intensifying regional tensions. Iran has vowed a “strong and complex” counterattack against Israel involving more powerful warheads and other weapons. Israel has warned that further aggression will be met with decisive action, stating that Iran “will pay a heavy price.”
This conflict raises questions about its impact on regional stability and the future of the Iranian regime.
Israel has long viewed Iran’s ballistic missile program as a serious threat to its national security and to regional stability. Iran’s recent missile launch underscores the regime’s capacity to strike Israeli targets directly, adding to the urgency of addressing its expanding military capabilities. The attack also follows Iran’s continued support of Hamas and Hezbollah, which have launched their own attacks on Israel recently.
As tensions escalate, many Iranians are expressing hope that Israel’s actions could weaken the Islamic regime’s grip on power. The regime has consistently used regional conflicts to rally nationalist sentiment and suppress domestic dissent. This time, however, Iranians seem less inclined to support the regime’s aggressive tactics.
“If Israel targets the heads of the [Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps], the police and other top officials, including the supreme leader, people like me will flood the streets,” one young activist said. “This could be the moment we’ve been waiting for to overthrow the regime.”
Despite this optimism, there are concerns about the potential consequences of escalating violence. Many Iranians worry that continued attacks could worsen already dire economic conditions, with the potential for increased civilian suffering.
“We want regime change, but not at the cost of more civilian casualties or the destruction of critical infrastructure like energy facilities,” a retired teacher said. For many, the hope is that Israel’s actions will focus on crippling Iran’s command structures without causing broader devastation to the population.
Iran’s ballistic missile program has been a contentious issue since the signing of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in 2015. While the Iran nuclear deal focused primarily on limiting Tehran’s nuclear enrichment capabilities, it did not effectively address the regime’s development of ballistic missiles. According to U.N. Security Council Resolution 2231, which endorsed the agreement, Iran was “called upon” not to develop ballistic missiles designed to be capable of delivering nuclear weapons. But this was not legally binding, allowing Iran to expand its missile program.
In recent years, Iran has increased the range, precision and payload capacity of its ballistic missiles. The regime’s support for Russia, particularly by supplying missiles and drones for the Ukraine conflict, has further complicated the situation. This raises questions about the effectiveness of the Iran nuclear deal and whether a trigger mechanism can be activated to reinstate international sanctions on Tehran.
President-elect Donald Trump’s administration is likely to again employ a “maximum pressure” strategy when he returns to office. This strategy involves enforcing sanctions on Iran’s oil exports, financial transactions and military activities. His administration will aim to cut off Iran’s resources used for military expansion and suppressing domestic dissent while considering support for Iranian opposition groups to further destabilize the regime.
But there are practical concerns about organizing such uprisings. As the protests in 2019 and 2022 showed, Tehran often stifles dissent by cutting off internet access.
“If Israel or the West could provide us with internet access, we could organize protests and coordinate actions ourselves,” an Iranian remarked. The prospect of strikes on regime leaders — especially the IRGC commanders and top officials responsible for suppressing protests — would significantly weaken the regime’s ability to maintain control.
Many believe that such action, combined with the restoration of internet access, could enable Iranians to rise up and overthrow the government.
An underground activist explained: “All we need is for Israel to take out the key people in the military and the heads of the regime. If a cyberattack could target [state-controlled Iranian media], that would silence their propaganda and give us a clearer voice. If that happens and we have internet, we’ll be able to take the final step ourselves. This is what we’ve been waiting for.”
The recent missile attack marks a critical juncture in the Iran-Israel conflict. If Israel responds with a broader military campaign, it could further weaken Tehran’s control, potentially paving the way for more domestic uprisings. It could also lead to increased civilian casualties and further regional instability. For Iranian civilians, the stakes are incredibly high: Seize the moment to dismantle the regime or face more suppression and violence.
Many Iranian activists, both inside and outside the country, are urging the international community to support the people of Iran rather than engage in backdoor negotiations with the regime. They argue that providing communication channels, such as internet access, during protests and targeting the regime’s propaganda arm through cyber operations could empower the people to organize effectively and lead to regime change.
The international community faces a critical decision on how to respond to Iran’s escalating actions. As Israel considers its next move, it is clear that any strategy must prioritize Iranians’ aspirations for freedom and democracy. A combination of military pressure, diplomatic isolation and support for grassroots movements could offer the best chance of meaningful change in Iran.
But the potential for increased conflict is real, and the international community must be prepared for the consequences. As one protester put it: “We have lived under this regime for too long. We are ready for change, but we need support from the world, not more deals with the regime.”
• Aidin Panahi is an Iranian American research professor and energy expert and a human rights and political activist.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.