The Islamic Republic must not survive this war

The US-Israeli military campaign against Iran, which began on February 28 and remains ongoing, has so far failed to produce a strategic victory.

The Islamic Republic remains in power, the nuclear issue remains unresolved, and Iran still possesses sufficient missile capacity, naval capabilities and regional proxies to destabilise the region and prolong the conflict.

Nor can the Islamic Republic be described as the victor. The regime has suffered extensive military and economic losses, but its survival allows it to portray itself as having withstood the United States and Israel..

Such a narrative carries enormous weight in the Muslim world, where Israel is known as a country that frequently achieves its military objectives and defeats its enemies. If the Iranian regime were the only force capable of threatening and attacking Israel without being defeated, it would attract strong support among Muslims who harbour hatred towards Israel. These Muslims live both in the Middle East and in Europe. The flag of the Islamic Republic is already being flown at pro-Palestinian demonstrations in Sweden. Among those who hate Israel, the Iranian regime is already being celebrated for having survived.

It is also important to emphasise what the Islamic Republic considers a victory. In the regime’s public narrative, military and political victory has always been defined as the successful defence of Iranian territory and the survival of the Islamist system. The same definition was applied when Iraq invaded Iran in 1980.

This means that merely remaining in power, while preserving Iran’s territorial integrity under its rule, will be enough for the mullahs to declare themselves victorious and claim that they successfully stood up to Israel and the United States. This narrative will be accepted by those who hate Israel. For them, what matters most is that someone can attack Israel and continue threatening it. That is where they find their inspiration.

The implications extend beyond hatred of Israel. Islamist ideology will also attract more people if Iran’s Islamist regime emerges intact from a war against Israel and the United States. For many people in the Middle East who harbour hatred towards the United States and Israel, the survival of the mullahs’ regime will represent not only a victory, but a paradigm shift.

The fact that the Iranian regime’s survival will strengthen Islamism and antagonism towards Israel is an important reason why this regime must fall. The alternative is not merely decades more of Islamist oppression in Iran, but also the transformation of one of the Middle East’s largest countries into a hub for a permanent campaign against Israel’s existence and against Jewish communities worldwide.

Recent history provides examples of the Iranian regime targeting Jews even in countries such as Sweden, where I live. In 2024, Swedish Radio revealed that two agents linked to Iranian intelligence had reportedly gathered information about Jews in Sweden with the intention of murdering them.

If the Iranian regime survives this war, its intelligence operations will become more aggressive, and we will see more terrorist attacks against Iranian exiles and Jewish and Israeli individuals in Europe.

The conditions for overthrowing the Islamic Republic exist today. There is deep dissatisfaction among Iranians and substantial commitment within the Iranian diaspora.

For the first time in many years, there is also a leader in Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi, who commands substantial support among Iranians, has a constitutional claim to legitimacy, and has declared his willingness to lead Iran through a transition to democracy.

Regime change would nevertheless require a much greater commitment. But the alternative to regime change is a world in which Iranian exiles, Jews and everyone who supports democracy in Iran must live in insecurity.

Given the political climate in the United States, Israel’s limited military resources and the political complications that a foreign military presence would create inside Iran, neither the United States nor Israel can sustain a long-term military commitment on Iranian soil.

The alternative to American and Israeli ground forces is to arm the opposition—both Iranian exiles and disaffected Iranians living inside the country. An armed opposition, combined with discontent within Iran’s regular armed forces, could bring about the regime’s fall.

It is, of course, impossible to predict every stage of that process in detail. What is needed, however, is a counterforce on the ground capable of protecting the Iranian people from the regime’s enforcers while persuading state officials and military personnel to change sides and turn against the regime.

Given Iran’s immense size, such a process of regime change could take several years. The alternative—allowing the regime to remain in power and, following an American withdrawal, leaving it free to develop nuclear weapons—is unacceptable.

Neither the Middle East nor the global economy is likely to regain lasting stability while this regime remains in power. The Iranian regime’s use of terrorism and regional destabilisation will continue to threaten international peace and economic security until the regime falls.

The Islamic Republic will not endure forever. The longer it survives, the greater the human cost will be—not only for Iran, but for the wider region and the world. The choice is not between confrontation and a durable peace with the existing regime. It is between recurring cycles of war, repression and fragile agreements, and a strategy that gives Iranians the means to remove the regime and determine their own future.