BY QAMAR BASHIR
Former MD, SRBC | Macomb, MichiganThe Middle East has been subjected to a destructive and repetitive doctrine that promises peace through regime change but delivers only chaos, fragmentation, and endless war. At the core of this ideology stands Benjamin Netanyahu, whose long-held belief is that Israel’s security and regional dominance require the dismantling of hostile governments rather than coexistence with them. From Iraq to Libya, from Syria to Afghanistan, from Lebanon to Gaza, this toxic philosophy has left entire societies in ruins—yet it is being recycled once again, this time against Iran.
Israel’s current military campaign in Gaza and the West Bank, its permanent occupation of the Golan Heights, its repeated strikes inside Syria, and its confrontations with Lebanon all reveal a broader expansionist vision. However, Netanyahu understands that without neutralizing Iran—the only regional power capable of resisting Israeli military dominance—this vision cannot fully materialize. This is why Iran has been framed as an “existential threat,” and why regime change in Tehran has become a central obsession.
Even before the brief twelve-day escalation in June involving Israel, United States, and Iran, Netanyahu had been relentlessly injecting the idea that once Iran’s leadership is removed, peace will finally descend upon the Middle East. This is the same argument used to push the United States into Iraq, to destroy Libya, to destabilize Syria, and to militarize Afghanistan. Every time this doctrine was applied, conditions worsened—terrorism expanded, refugees multiplied, and regional instability deepened.
At that critical moment, Donald Trump did not endorse regime change in Iran. He resisted plunging the United States into another open-ended conflict. However, Israel did not abandon its objective. Instead, it adopted a two-pronged strategy: destabilization from within and the grooming of a manufactured alternative leadership for Iran.
According to Iranian authorities, the current unrest was not merely spontaneous protest but was instigated, coordinated, and guided by Israeli intelligence networks operating under Mossad. Tehran presented evidence that Mossad-linked operatives were embedded among protest groups, receiving instructions directly from headquarters in Tel Aviv. These instructions allegedly included plans to incite large-scale rioting, burn banks, destroy ambulances, attack police officers, and sabotage mosques and public infrastructure. The objective was not reform but disorder.
Most critically, Iranian officials revealed that even after the country shut down its domestic internet, communications between these operatives and their handlers continued through satellite-based systems, while Iran simultaneously faced hundreds of thousands of cyberattacks targeting its communications infrastructure. This exposed the operation as a coordinated hybrid assault combining street violence, cyber warfare, and psychological pressure.
When this evidence was reportedly shown to President Trump, his initial posture hardened. He openly stated that all options remained on the table. However, the situation shifted when Iran halted scheduled executions and refrained from further mass repression. Trump himself publicly stated that executions had been stopped and that there would be no further oppressive measures against protesters. With that declaration, he effectively poured cold water on Netanyahu’s attempt to maneuver the United States into another Middle Eastern war.
Parallel to the destabilization campaign, Israel simultaneously cultivated a political alternative: Reza Pahlavi, the son of Iran’s former monarch. Pahlavi has lived outside Iran since the age of twelve, spending his entire adult life in the United States. He has no organic political base inside Iran, no demonstrated grassroots support, and no tangible connection to the daily struggles of the Iranian people. For decades, he remained politically irrelevant. Suddenly, amid unrest, he was reintroduced as a “savior.”
Despite living a luxurious lifestyle in the United States without any clearly defined source of income, Pahlavi has been aggressively promoted as a viable leader for Iran. He was invited to Jerusalem, where, in interviews with Israeli media, he openly spoke about historical alignment between Iran, Israel, and the Jewish people. In doing so, he publicly positioned himself as ideologically aligned with Israel’s regional agenda. This appearance confirmed that he has effectively sold himself as a convenient figurehead—offered the illusion of kingship in exchange for political obedience.
This two-pronged Israeli strategy—instigating large-scale unrest while simultaneously presenting a pre-selected alternative ruler—mirrors earlier regime-change playbooks used elsewhere. However, it is fundamentally flawed. Reza Pahlavi does not represent modern Iran. He has no roots in today’s Iranian society, no institutional backing inside the country, and no legitimacy among a population that has lived through revolution, war, sanctions, and resistance. Attempting to impose him as a solution only exposes the artificial nature of the entire project.
More dangerously, an attack on Iran would not resemble Iraq or Libya. Iran controls or influences critical waterways and trade corridors. It possesses strategic depth, hardened military infrastructure, and powerful allies. Any war would immediately draw in Russia and China, turning a regional conflict into a global economic and military crisis. Energy markets would collapse, supply chains would fracture, and the United States would face overstretch and humiliation rather than victory.
While the U.S. mainland may be geographically distant, American military bases across the Middle East and beyond remain well within Iran’s reach. Moreover, if Iran preserves even part of its nuclear infrastructure under such pressure, the eventual consequences for Israel could be far more severe than anything Netanyahu anticipates. A cornered Iran is not a defeated Iran.
At this moment, the United States is already deeply entangled elsewhere—in Venezuela, in the Greenland controversy in the Arctic, amid internal unrest over federal enforcement actions, and as the credibility of NATO and the United Nations continues to erode. Being dragged into another war engineered by Netanyahu would contradict every principle of “America First.”
This is the moment for the United States to free itself from external pressure groups, including AIPAC, and to pursue an independent foreign policy grounded in national interest rather than ideological entanglements. The Middle East does not need another regime destroyed. It needs restraint, realism, and an end to expansionist fantasies that have already devastated an entire region.
History has already judged the regime-change doctrine. The only question now is whether the United States will finally refuse to repeat it.
Press Secretary to the President (Rtd)
Former Press Minister, Embassy of Pakistan to France
Former Press Attaché to Malaysia
