Dr. Alon Ben-Meir

As the US-Iran negotiations regarding the latter’s nuclear program and the threat of attacking Iran loom high, both the Trump administration and Iran ought to consider very carefully the potentially colossal regional repercussions if they do not reach an agreement. If Netanyahu convinces Trump during their meeting, at the time of this writing, that attacking Iran now, amid Tehran’s weakened proxies and internal turmoil, will bring regime change, they’ll both be gravely mistaken. Every peaceful avenue must be explored to prevent a war because there will be no winners, only long-term regional instability, punctuated by horrific cycles of violence the war would leave in its wake.

A US attack would carry a high risk of regional war. Iran has vowed to strike US bases and Israel. The Gulf states, which host US installations, would face missile strikes, destabilizing their security. Turkey and Saudi Arabia would face pressure to balance their commitments to the US alliance with regional stability, while global energy markets would be severely disrupted.

Iran’s Retaliatory Options

Iran’s retaliatory calculus is shaped by its current weakness—a degraded proxy network, internal unrest, and economic distress that significantly constrain its options. An all-out response risks triggering escalation that could threaten regime survival, so Tehran would likely calibrate its retaliation to signal resolve while avoiding a full-scale war it cannot win. Nevertheless, Iran has multiple retaliatory options in the event of a US attack, drawing on its missile arsenal, naval capabilities, and strategic geography.

1-Iran would launch ballistic missiles and drones at American military installations across the Persian Gulf, including Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar, which it already struck in June 2025 after the US bombing of Iranian nuclear sites.

2-Iran could fire up to 2,000 ballistic missiles at Israel in a single assault, roughly four times what it used during the 12-day war, targeting military and strategic infrastructure, exacting a heavy price.

3-Iran would attempt to block the Strait of Hormuz using naval mines, attack boats, and submarines, disrupting over 20 percent of global liquefied natural gas and 25 percent of maritime oil trade, causing a worldwide energy price shock.

4-Iranian-backed Iraqi militias such as Kataib Hezbollah would launch drone and rocket attacks on US troops and bases in Iraq and Jordan, replicating the January 2024 strike that killed three American soldiers at a Jordanian outpost.

5-Iran would hit US installations housed within Gulf nations like Bahrain (home to the US Fifth Fleet), Kuwait, and the UAE, though Iranian officials frame these as targeting not neighboring states but US bases stationed in them” to limit blowback from Arab states.

Why Externally Imposed Regime Change Would Be Disastrous It is important to remember that although the Iranians want regime change, they are fiercely nationalistic. Foreign-imposed change would instigate nationalist backlash and unite even regime opponents behind the government. The historical precedent of the 1953 CIA-backed coup’s failure remains seared into Iranian national consciousness, fueling decades of anti-American sentiment and ultimately leading to the 1979 Islamic Revolution.

Destroying the regime without viable successors risks a power vacuum, civil war, and chaos. Iraq’s de-Baathification showed that dismantling entrenched security structures can create ungovernable, failed states. Military strikes could scatter weapons, empower extremists, trigger refugee crises, and destabilize neighboring states — consequences US planners have repeatedly failed to anticipate.

Finally, foreign-installed governments are perceived as puppet regimes, provoking sustained internal opposition, insurgency, and instability — as documented in the failure of over 60 percent of the US’ 64 covert regime-change operations between 1947 and 1989.

Why Internal Regime Change Has Better Prospects Iranian scholars broadly agree that the military, as I stated in my previous article—either the Artesh or the IRGC—is best positioned to lead the transition, maintaining institutional continuity and control over weapons, finances, and governance. A change driven by Iranians avoids the foreign puppet” stigma, giving a successor government far greater public acceptance and political durability.

Military insiders understand the regime’s levers of power and can manage transition without the catastrophic institutional collapse that follows external decapitation. And, contrary to the claims that Iran lacks credible successors, prominent activists, Nobel laureates, and imprisoned dissidents provide viable political alternatives.

Iran Seeks a Sustainable Deal with the US Although Iran has signaled its willingness to dilute its 60 percent enriched uranium stockpile, Tehran insists enrichment is non-negotiable and refuses to discuss missiles.  However, an agreement on Iran’s nuclear program is definitely within reach. Likewise, Iran may end its support for proxies like Hamas and Hezbollah, as they’ve been degraded by Israel, and Iran now faces economic and logistical constraints to reconstitute them, especially after losing its foothold in Syria following the Assad regime’s collapse.

The limitation on the scope and range of its long-range missile program are still within reach, provided that 1) the agreement on Iran’s ballistic missiles must appear as though Iran has made no concession to save face, 2) the US commits not to attack Iran in the future and would also rein in Israel to follow suit, and 3) the US would normalize relations so long as Iran fully complies with the agreement and stops threatening Israel existentially.

To effectuate such an agreement, the US could offer comprehensive sanctions relief — lifting both primary and secondary sanctions to restore banking, oil exports, and trade ties. Additional inducements include assistance in building civilian nuclear power reactors, limited enrichment permitted under international monitoring, the gradual unfreezing of Iranian assets held abroad, security, and the gradual normalization of diplomatic relations.

Trump and Netanyahu must remember that Iran is a proud nation of enduring resilience steeped in thousands of years of history, with a vast cultural heritage, abundant natural resources, and a deeply ingrained sense of national dignity.  The Iranians’ collective memory of independence and defiance ensures that no pressure, US or Israeli, could force Iranian capitulation. Trump and Netanyahu must abandon their illusion of controlling Iran.

Ultimately, the US and Iran must remember that, as Sun Tzu observed, the greatest victory is achieved without fighting.

Dr. Alon Ben-Meir is a retired professor of international relations, most recently at the Center for Global Affairs at NYU. He taught courses on international negotiation and Middle Eastern studies.