Why Regime Change Hasn't Happened In Iran

'Without ground troops the US will not be able to oust the Iranian Islamic regime.'
'Political change does not happen just by using bombs or planes.'

When Israeli and American warplanes began pounding Iranian targets on February 28, many in Western capitals believed the strike that killed Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei would trigger the collapse of the Islamic Republic from within.

For decades, Israel and Iran had fought a shadow war through covert operations, cyberattacks, assassinations and proxy conflicts across the Middle East.

That long-running covert rivalry escalated dramatically when the United States joined Israeli strikes on Iranian military and strategic infrastructure, turning what had largely been an indirect confrontation into open warfare.

The killing of the 86-year-old Khamenei was widely seen as a decapitation strike intended to paralyse Iran's political system and possibly trigger mass protests against the clerical regime, particularly after years of anti-government mobilisation including the anti-hijab movement.

Yet, more than a week into the war, the expected political collapse in Tehran has not materialised.

Instead, Iran moved swiftly to stabilise its leadership structure, elevating Mojtaba Khamenei to supreme leader status and relying on the powerful Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps to maintain internal cohesion.

Despite sustained air attacks and the pressure of economic disruption, the Islamic Republic has shown little sign of capitulating.

Tehran has instead attempted to widen the battlefield by threatening American interests and energy infrastructure across the Gulf while relying on its large arsenal of missiles and drones to sustain a prolonged confrontation.

Why did the anticipated collapse of the Iranian system not take place? Did Western governments misread the strength of dissent inside Iran? And how long can Tehran hold out against the combined military pressure of Israel and the United States?

In this interview with Syed Firdaus Ashraf/Rediff, Kabir Taneja, Executive Director for Middle East Studies at the Observer Research Foundation, explains why Iran appears far more resilient than many expected and why the current conflict could evolve into a prolonged regional crisis rather than a swift regime-changing war.

We are more than a week into the war and Iran seems to be in no mood to surrender. Did anyone expect that after Ayatollah Khamenei's death Iran will be able to withstand the might of US-Israel air attacks?

Decapitation is something that has been utilised against Iran for a long period of time.

A lot of the conflict that we are seeing right now in conventional format has been happening between Iran and Israel in a clandestine form for decades.

The preparation that Iran had for this kind of eventuality has always been there.

Having said that, it is a huge blow for a system like Iran to lose their spiritual leader Ayatollah Khamenei, but also, Khamenei was 86 years old and his succession plan was already in place for the past couple of years. He was quite ill too.

Other than the symbolism of assassinating Khamenei, when it comes to political decision making or creating a structure that will sustain post his departure, all that was probably in place. Functionally it did not matter too much, but of course, politically, spiritually and emphatically it was a very big deal.

Did Western powers overestimate the January protests in Iran as they must have felt that after Khamenei's death the people of Iran would overthrow the clergy government?

I think so. They are not using the language now but till a couple of days back they were saying it was upto the will of the Iranian people to decide what kind of political system will take place later on.

That was reliant on their perception that there was going to be mass mobilisation or popular mobilisation similar to the Arab Spring that happened a couple of years back, that would displace the current Iranian political system once the ayatollah was eliminated.

They made the calculation that post the ayatollah there would be a disintegration of the Iranian system.

All that did not take place. There was clearly misconception on the strength of public opinion inside Iran despite the protest that took place, be it civilian protests, anti-hijab protests or pro-monarchy protests.

Till now nothing has happened. There has been no popular mobilisation (against the Islamic regime), so whatever intelligence they had as far as that part of the plan was concerned was fairly flawed or misrepresented.

The war must surely have created food shortages and hit electricity supply in Iran. How come the Islamic regime is still holding onto the country?

The people will not be able to do anything. If the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is in a position to fight back and if there is level of decentralisation on what kind of warfare is taking place and the fact that their strategy is not to attack Israel directly but American interests in the Gulf countries.

The idea is to basically expand this war to pressure America not from their military might but from the consequences of American engagement inside Iran which is what is happening right now.

Even prior to the war they said (to Americans), don't do this as the cost will be too high.

Iranians have been saying for the last 10 months that if the Ayatollah was targeted or if they are targeted extensively they will make this war a regional war. They have done that now.

Strategically this is not something new.

What strategy is working for Iran that is not making the regime surrender? What right steps are they taking in terms of military preparedness?

They have a huge number of missiles and drones in their ammunition. They do not have an air force. You've got to remember that the Americans till now are not going for ground invasion.

Political change does not happen through air power. It is very difficult. Right now the American plan is that they have huge air power and they are expecting someone within Iran to come up and take charge (by throwing out the current regime) which has not happened yet.

The time between the assassination of the ayatollah and the new ayatollah chosen was short because Iran had prepared for this for the past couple of years.

That time was the only probable time when any kind of displacement of political power could have taken place.

Now, in the next week or two, if this continues and there is solidification of the new ayatollah (Mojtaba Khamenei) as far as internal cohesion is concerned, then we will see the same thing what was going on in Iran for the past 40 years but under a new leadership, and nothing else.

Opponents of Iran say that Iran will be defeated the day its missiles and drones get exhausted. Do you feel this can be true?

They will probably, at some point. The Shahed drone is a simple machine, it flies 150 to 160 km per hour under a threshold of 2,000 to 5,000 feet. These are drones that can be manufactured in a huge capacity on a monthly basis.

If they do maintain that capacity in the time to come they can continue with the idea of a protracted war targeting largely regional countries for a long period of time.

Now it comes to the point a country facing an existential crisis it is going to be in a mode to fight to the death. I don't think the Americans or Israelis will be in that mode. How long can this go on from the American and Israeli point of view is something that may determine the eventual outcome of this conflict.

Is Iran capable of producing more missiles and drones in war conditions? If yes, how many of them can it produce?

The estimation is 3,000 to 5,000 Shahed drones in a month at this point of time. I don't know about the Iranian missile capacity production though. You also got to know that Shahed drones useability and manufacturing was perfected in the Russia-Ukraine war. The Iranians supplied Shahed drones to the Russians in huge numbers. The capacity building was solidified during the Russia-Ukraine war.

Are China-Russia militarily helping Iran in the war?

Not kinetically or militarily; some reports have suggested that Russians may have provided some targeting intelligence to Iran.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov has very strongly supported the Iranian position in the conflict. Other than diplomatic and maybe some intelligence inputs here and there, as far as the military goes they will not be entering this war.

You had written that the only way actionable intelligence would reach Israel and the US on Khamenei's whereabouts, movements, and schedules, is if the calls were coming from inside the house itself.
If this was the case, what about the people who provided intelligence to Israel? Are they not powerful enough in Iran to overthrow the regime?

Not necessarily. The Americans were going to Iran with more of a Venezuelan operation. They just wanted to remove the head of state (like Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela) and let someone whom they can work with (take charge).

The Americans themselves said there were 2-3 people who could do that but they were eliminated in the air strikes itself.

So even if the Americans may have deep intelligence in Iran it is not necessary those people (who are spying on Iran from within) can rise to power or overthrow the power in Iran. Because then you are talking of taking on the entire IRGC (Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps) system which remains intact in its support for the ayatollah and its support in making sure that the current Islamic revolution regime persists and exists beyond this war as well.

The US want the Kurds to play a role in overthrowing the Iranian government. Do you feel the Kurds will be able to do that?

There is this idea of arming minorities or Balkanising Iran, but I don't think this has functioned very well for the Kurds. I know for a fact that when this idea was announced this would be a huge problem for the Turks.

Turkiye, which has a border with Iran, will not allow the Kurdish armed militia on its border considering they have fought the Kurdish armed militia PKK (Kurdistan Workers Party) for the last 30 years.

So the Turks will actively push back against any such idea, but, of course, from an Israeli perspective they will not mind if Iran is left in a chaotic format internally so that they are just busy with sort of trying to hold onto power.

This will give them less time and resources to concentrate on external aggression which is mostly targeted at Israel.

Do you believe that without ground troops in Iran, the USA will not be able to oust the current Islamic regime? In that case, what are the other military options?

Yes, without ground troops the US will not be able to oust the Iranian Islamic regime. It is very difficult by utilising just air power to change the regime. Political change does not happen just by using bombs or planes.

If you remember Trump had told pro monarchy protestors of Iran 'help is coming'. This basically meant air power which he believed would galvanise something to overthrow the Iranian regime but that did not happen.

The Iranian system is deeply entrenched and you got to remember that not everyone in Iran hates the current system. There is a lot of support for them also which will now be further galvanised and help them in a way that they are trying to sustain this political system in the future as well.

Does Iran believe that targeting the UAE, Qatar, Kuwait and other oil producing nations will result in a global energy crisis leading to America to withdraw its attack?

That is the strategy they are going with. I am not sure whether it will function or not, but right now Brent (crude futures) is touching $120. This is going to be a huge global concern. Trump has already tweeted that in the short term it does not matter.

But for a country like India which relies on the imports of hydrocarbons -- 86 percent of our hydrocarbons are imported annually -- it will be a huge problem if this price rise continues. There will be external pressure on the US if oil prices continue to spiral around $160 or $170 a barrel.

Right now it looks like the Islamic regime in Iran is not going anywhere and in this scenario what best can the US get out of this war?

I have studied this region for the last 10 years and it never ends well. You cannot predict anything and I don't want to put my neck on the line. Right now things are very fluid and it is very difficult to say (what will happen next).

I don't think Iranians will at this point of time be willing to capitulate which is the demand of the Americans that they should surrender their drones and missiles and only then they can talk.

Both are looking at a middle path but both are not agreeing to the terms and conditions that each of them have as to what that middle path would be.

So at this point you may see a continuation of the conflict for a few weeks at least.