We
attacked Iran with no clear plan for regime change, Israeli security sources
say
If regime
holds, control of enriched uranium may be ultimate measure of US-Israeli
success, insiders say
Emma
Graham-Harrison
Emma
Graham-Harrison in Jerusalem
Thu 12
Mar 2026 10.12 GMT
Israel
did not have a realistic plan for regime change when it attacked Iran, multiple
Israeli security sources have said, with expectations that airstrikes could
lead to a popular uprising having been driven by “wishful thinking” rather than
hard intelligence.
Iran has
survived nearly two weeks of bombing raids and the assassination of Ayatollah
Ali Khamenei, and Trump is publicly contemplating ending the increasingly
costly war.
If Iran’s
new leadership keeps its grip on power, the long-term measure of the success of
the conflict may hang on the fate of 440kg of enriched uranium which was buried
under a mountain by US strikes last June, former and serving Israeli defence
and intelligence sources said. Enough for more than 10 nuclear warheads, Iran
could use it to hasten the construction of a weapon if the material remains in
the country.
“These
440kg of uranium are one of the clearest litmus tests for how this war ends,
whether it is a success,” said one former senior Israeli defence and
intelligence official who worked on Iran. “We need to be in a position where
either this material is out of Iran, or you have a regime where you are
confident that it is safeguarded [inside Iran] in a very meaningful way.”
Hardliners
in Iran have long argued a nuclear deterrent is the only guarantee of survival
for the Islamic republic. The overwhelming military dominance of US and Israeli
forces in this war is likely to bolster that view if the regime survives.
The US is
reportedly considering sending troops on a high-risk mission to secure the
uranium. Negotiations before the war also included proposals for Iran to
surrender the enriched uranium to another country.
“It’s a
high-risk game this war, because if it succeeds, it would completely change the
Middle East for the best,” the former official said. “But if we bomb everything
and the regime stays in power, and they continue to maintain those 400kg of
uranium, I think we will be starting the countdown to an attempt by Iran to go
to a nuclear weapon.”
Joab
Rosenberg, the former deputy head of Israel’s military intelligence research
division, was even more blunt, describing any conclusion of the war that leaves
the uranium in Iranian hands as a pyrrhic victory.
“The
worst result of this war will be the declaration of victory of the type of June
2025, leaving the Iranian regime weak with 450kg of enriched uranium in its
hands,” he said in a social media post. “So they will 100% be going for a
nuclear bomb and our victory will become our loss.”
The
assassination of Ali Khamenei may have compounded the nuclear threat from Iran.
He poured economic and political resources into a programme that could easily
be turned to military use, but for decades held off on the final stage of
ordering construction of a weapon.
The views
of his son and successor, Mojtaba Khamenei, are less clear. “With [Ali]
Khamanei we knew almost everything about his decision making,” said another
former senior intelligence official. “He was doing a lot of things we were
concerned about, and that’s why there was a war. But he never took the decision
to run [to a bomb] no matter what.
“With
Mojtaba, I am not so sure we have the knowledge to assess what he will do with
the nuclear programme,” the source added. “He could run to a bomb right now.”
The
devastation caused by Israeli and US bombing would delay work on a nuclear
weapon, but even with limited technical capacity the political decision to move
forward with creating a bomb would escalate the long-term threat to Israel, he
said.
Despite
these risks, the US-Israeli war has broad support inside Israel’s military
establishment, several serving and former defence and intelligence officials
have told the Guardian, reflecting popular backing in Israeli society.
After the
7 October 2023 Hamas-led attacks, Israel’s military has prioritised acting to
remove potential immediate threats to Israel, such as Iran’s ballistic missile
programme, as soon as possible, according to sources.
Nearly
two weeks of airstrikes have destroyed or degraded much of Iran’s military
capacity, taking out missiles, launchers and the military industrial supply
chains that produced them, as well as political leaders, military commanders,
academics and engineers.
Regime
change ‘wishful thinking’
The
Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and Donald Trump launched the war
with calls for regime change, immediately turning the conflict into an
existential one for Iran’s rulers. Trump may have been intoxicated by the
success of his raid to capture the Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro and
replace him with more US-friendly elements from the same system.
For this
report the Guardian spoke to a number of serving and former Israeli defence and
intelligence experts, including individuals who had played key roles in the
country’s long fight against Iran’s nuclear programme.
Some of
them say it was never realistic to expect an air war could immediately collapse
the Iranian government or replicate the policy pivot forced on Caracas.
“It’s
wishful thinking,” said one of the intelligence sources. “We used to have a
plan how to take out the ballistic missiles, how to deal with the nuclear
sites, how to take care of the military industry in Iran. But I never heard
that we knew how to do a campaign [of regime change] from the air.
“We never
knew how to get into the heads of 90 million people. So how would we know how
to assess whether they would go to the streets or not? We are hoping they will
go.”
In
January mass anti-regime protests were brutally repressed by the regime, with
tens of thousands reportedly killed. At the time Trump promised “help is on its
way”, and since the war began Netanyahu has repeatedly called on the Iranian
people to rise up.
Israel
says it is targeting the structures of domestic control to make this easier.
Airstrikes have reportedly hit the Basij, the volunteer police arm of the
Revolutionary Guards Corps, and buildings belonging to internal security
forces.
Another
popular uprising during war was always extremely unlikely, said Sima Shine, an
Iran specialist and former head of research at Israel’s Mossad intelligence
agency. There have been no signs of Iranians taking to the streets or
significant defections from security forces that could undermine their grip on
the country since the US-Israeli campaign began.
“I belong
to those who don’t think that regime change can happen from bombing from the
outside,” Shine said. However, she does not rule out the longer-term security
and economic impacts of the bombing campaign leading to the government’s
collapse. “It’s not black and white. It might be that Iran will finish the war
so weak, everything will be so fragile, that it will ease the capability for
changes from outside the regime.”
Many in
the Israeli intelligence and defence community who did not expect regime change
also feared that a battered, decapitated Iran would pose significant nuclear
risks if it retained possession of the enriched uranium.
Even so,
they backed a bombing campaign over further negotiations, on the grounds that
airstrikes could take out many of Iran’s missiles and much of the industry that
produced them, as well as further devastating its economy.
That
prioritising of immediate tactical military dominance reflects the impact of 7
October 2023 on approaches to national security, several Israeli defence and
intelligence officials have said.
Dramatic
victories, but unable to capitalise
Israel’s
priority now is to make Iran and its proxies as weak as possible as soon as
possible, even though the war risks spurring longer-term Iranian efforts to
develop a nuclear weapon, multiple current and former officials have said.
“After
October 7, Israel is not the same state it used to be before. The policy
changed completely. There is zero tolerance, about 70% or 80% of Israelis are
not willing to accept any bullshit from our adversaries that want to kill us,”
one said when asked about longer-term strategic fallout from the war. “The
first priority of the IDF [Israel Defense Forces] is to protect our families …
then we will deal with all the rest.”
Nearly
two weeks of bombing has destroyed much of Iran’s military industrial base,
running through targets from missiles to the factories far downstream, and the
academics and engineers who design and run the programme.
“The IDF
are on the verge of concluding this campaign. They are not going to say this,
because it’s a political directive [when it will end], but from a military
point of view they’ve fulfilled almost all the mission,” he said. “Two weeks,
and it’s over after that.”
The
damage would take years to fully repair, a third former senior security
official said, making Israel safer in the immediate future even without regime
change. “This is not some small terror cell, it is a huge country with lots of
academic, intellectual depth and resources. So once the kinetic phase of this
war ends, assuming the regime is not toppled, we should expect a new
weaponisation race.
“You need
to target the experts, the facilities, the equipment, and in some cases at
least, in the nuclear issue, the materials. If you achieve a severe blow on
those capabilities, that can really delay renewal of the threat for a much
longer period.”
The
bombing has been more extensive than during the 12-day war in June, several
sources have said. Then, Netanyahu claimed a “historic victory” had removed the
threat from Iran’s ballistic missiles, but the country rapidly restored
production.
Achieving
freedom to operate in the skies of a vast and distant country, more than
1,000km away from Israel and with more territory than Germany, France and Spain
combined, is another strategic success that will make it easier for Israel to
project power at a greater distance in future wars.
Air
defences cannot be taken out in a single surprise strike; gaining air
superiority required waves of attacks against anti-air missile batteries,
mostly launched when the enemy was prepared. Iran’s response to this onslaught
has been to wage asymmetric attacks across the region and into Europe, pushing
up fuel costs and destabilising regional economies.
Many
Israelis who see this war as an existential struggle back a longer bombing
campaign in the hope that if the regime is not destroyed, it could be weakened
enough to cede control of the enriched uranium, handing Israel a “much broader
deterrence”.
They are
willing to risk extending an open-ended conflict that began in Gaza and has
lasted more than two years on shifting fronts, moving on to Lebanon, Syria,
Iran and Yemen.
As oil
prices spiral, fuelling inflation and discontent, many leaders in the region
and beyond are making very different calculations. Israel’s embrace of military
power as the only path to security risks leaving it isolated in the Middle East
and, in the longer term, perhaps internationally.
“Israel
is not willing or able to capitalise on its dramatic military achievements by
trying to move to the more political aspect of building new alliances,” another
former senior official said. “I am fearful we will still be stuck in this
place.”
.jpeg)
Sem comentários:
Enviar um comentário