Israel lacked a realistic plan for regime change when it attacked Iran, according to multiple Israeli security sources. The hope that airstrikes would spark a popular uprising was based more on “wishful thinking” than solid intelligence.
Iran has endured nearly two weeks of bombing and the assassination of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and President Trump is now openly considering ending the increasingly costly war.
If Iran’s new leadership consolidates power, the long-term success of the conflict may ultimately depend on the fate of 440kg of enriched uranium, former and current Israeli defense and intelligence sources said. This material, enough for more than ten nuclear warheads, was buried under a mountain by U.S. strikes last June. If it remains in Iran, the country could use it to accelerate building a weapon.
“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 defense 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 that a nuclear deterrent is the Islamic Republic’s only guarantee of survival. The overwhelming military dominance of U.S. and Israeli forces in this war is likely to strengthen that view if the regime survives.
The U.S. is reportedly considering a high-risk military mission to secure the uranium. Pre-war negotiations had also included proposals for Iran to surrender the enriched material 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.”
Yoav Rosenberg, the former deputy head of Israel’s military intelligence research division, was even more blunt, describing any end to 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 intensified the nuclear threat from Iran. He devoted significant economic and political resources to a program easily convertible to military use but held off for decades on the final step of ordering a weapon’s construction.
The views of his son and successor, Mojtaba Khamenei, are less clear. “With [Ali] Khamenei 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 from Israeli and U.S. bombing would delay work on a nuclear weapon, the source said, but even with limited technical capacity, a political decision to proceed would escalate the long-term threat to Israel.
Despite these risks, the U.S.-Israeli war has broad support within Israel’s military establishment, several serving and former defense and intelligence officials told the Guardian, reflecting popular backing.Following the Hamas-led attacks on October 7, 2023, Israel’s military has focused on swiftly eliminating immediate threats, such as Iran’s ballistic missile program. After nearly two weeks of airstrikes, much of Iran’s military capacity—including missiles, launchers, supply chains, and key personnel—has been destroyed or degraded.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Donald Trump initially called for regime change in Iran, framing the conflict as an existential threat to Iran’s rulers. Trump may have been encouraged by his successful operation to capture Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and replace him with more U.S.-friendly figures. However, Iran is not Venezuela, and experts caution that replicating such a strategy there is unrealistic.
Israeli defense and intelligence sources, some with experience countering Iran’s nuclear program, describe hopes for immediate regime change through air strikes as “wishful thinking.” While Israel had plans to target missiles, nuclear sites, and military infrastructure, it never developed a strategy to overthrow the government from the air or predict public reaction. As one source noted, “We never knew how to get into the heads of 90 million people.”
In January, mass anti-regime protests in Iran were brutally suppressed, with tens of thousands reportedly killed. Trump promised aid, and Netanyahu has since urged Iranians to rise up. Israeli strikes have targeted internal security forces like the Basij to weaken the regime’s control. Yet, experts like Sima Shine, a former Mossad researcher, doubt that bombing alone can trigger regime change, though prolonged economic and security impacts could eventually destabilize the government.
Many in Israel’s defense community acknowledge that a weakened Iran could still pose nuclear risks if it retains enriched uranium. Nonetheless, they support airstrikes over further negotiations, believing that degrading Iran’s military industry and economy provides immediate tactical advantages. This shift toward prioritizing military dominance reflects how the October 7 attacks have reshaped Israel’s national security approach.Intelligence officials have stated that Israel has achieved dramatic victories but has been unable to capitalize on them.
Israel’s current priority is to weaken Iran and its proxies as much and as quickly as possible, even though the war risks accelerating Iran’s long-term efforts to develop a nuclear weapon, according to multiple current and former officials.
“After October 7, Israel is not the same state it was before. The policy changed completely. There is zero tolerance; about 70% to 80% of Israelis are unwilling to accept any threats from adversaries who want to kill us,” one official said regarding the war’s longer-term strategic consequences. “The IDF’s first priority is to protect our families… then we will deal with everything else.”
Nearly two weeks of bombing have severely damaged Iran’s military-industrial base, targeting missiles, factories, and the academics and engineers behind the programs.
“The IDF is close to concluding this campaign. They won’t say so publicly because the end date is a political decision, but militarily, they’ve nearly completed the mission,” the official added. “Two weeks, and it’s over.”
A third former senior security official noted that repairing the damage would take years, enhancing Israel’s immediate security even without a change in Iran’s regime. “This isn’t a small terror cell; it’s a large country with significant academic, intellectual, and resource depth. So once the active combat ends, assuming the regime remains, we should expect a new arms race.”
“You need to target the experts, facilities, equipment, and in some cases, nuclear materials. If you deal a severe blow to those capabilities, it can delay the renewal of the threat for a much longer time.”
Several sources indicate the bombing has been more extensive than during the 12-day war in June. At that time, Netanyahu declared a “historic victory” that neutralized Iran’s ballistic missile threat, but Iran quickly restored production.
Another strategic success is Israel’s ability to operate in the skies over a vast country more than 1,000 km away—larger than Germany, France, and Spain combined. This will make it easier for Israel to project power over greater distances in future conflicts.
Air defenses cannot be eliminated in a single surprise strike; achieving air superiority required sustained attacks on anti-air missile batteries, often when Iran was prepared. In response, Iran has launched asymmetric attacks across the region and into Europe, driving up fuel costs and destabilizing regional economies.
Many Israelis, viewing this war as an existential struggle, support a prolonged bombing campaign in hopes of weakening the regime enough to force it to relinquish control of enriched uranium, thereby granting Israel “much broader deterrence.”
They are willing to risk extending an open-ended conflict that began in Gaza over two years ago, spreading to Lebanon, Syria, Iran, and Yemen.
As oil prices rise, fueling inflation and unrest, many regional and global leaders are reassessing their positions. Israel’s reliance on military power as its sole path to security risks leaving it isolated in the Middle East and, eventually, internationally.
“Israel is not willing or able to capitalize on its dramatic military achievements by shifting to the political work of building new alliances,” another former senior official said. “I fear we will remain stuck in this situation.”
Frequently Asked Questions
Of course Here is a list of FAQs about the reported Israeli security sources claim regarding the attack on Iran structured from beginner to more advanced questions
BeginnerLevel Questions
1 What is the basic claim being reported
Answer Israeli security officials are reportedly saying that a recent military strike on Iran was carried out without a welldefined plan for what should happen next specifically regarding changing Irans government or longterm policy
2 Who is making this claim
Answer The claim is attributed to unnamed sources within Israels security establishment like military or intelligence officials speaking to journalists Its not an official government statement
3 What does no clear strategy for changing its government mean
Answer It means the attacks goal wasnt clearly to remove Irans leaders or force a specific new political system Critics argue it was a retaliatory strike without a plan for how to handle Irans response or alter its behavior in the future
4 Why would Israel attack Iran
Answer Israel views Iran as its primary threat citing Irans nuclear program support for hostile groups like Hezbollah and Hamas and calls for Israels destruction Attacks are often framed as necessary selfdefense or to degrade military capabilities
Intermediate Strategic Questions
5 If the goal wasnt regime change what was it
Answer Most analysts believe the goal was likely deterrence and signaling to show Iran that its attacks will be met with a direct response and to demonstrate Israels ability to strike inside Iran It may also have aimed to destroy specific military assets
6 What are the risks of acting without a longterm strategy
Answer The main risks are escalation without a clear exit plan getting drawn into a wider war empowering hardliners in Iran and straining relations with allies who prefer diplomacy It can also leave Israel in a cycle of titfortat strikes
7 How does this claim relate to reported tensions in the Israeli government
Answer This type of leak often reflects internal debates It suggests some security officials may disagree with the political leaderships approach fearing that tactical military actions are not backed by a cohesive strategic vision for managing the Iran threat
