There is a good reason why the Trump administration advised Benjamin Netanyahu against targeting the supreme leader of Iran, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. For one thing it could spark a wider conflict in the region that could be difficult to handle and wrap up in a short span of time.

For another, the US through the Central Intelligence Agency has had a long history going beyond the Cold War years to know what “regime change” could at times result in: something worse than what had just been disposed. And the neighbourhood of Latin America is a good example.

The lightening strikes against Iran of June 13 by Israel now seems to have had more than the single objective of ridding nuclear and missile sites. The deadly blows also took out the top echelons of the military leadership and that of the Revolutionary Guards Corps. And now word comes that Washington asked Tel Aviv not to personally target Ayatollah Khamenei after being informed of a “credible” plan to that effect.

Israeli officials called the reports to kill the Iranian leader “fake”; and Netanyahu maintained that regime change “could certainly be the result of the conflict” as the regime is “very weak”.

Aborted N-deal

It is not just an expanded conflict in the Middle East that US President Donald Trump is worried about in cautioning Netanyahu from going after Ayatollah Khamenei. Trump has invested a lot of time and political capital in getting a nuclear deal with Teheran, something said to be different than the one he walked out of in his first term. Washington and Teheran have been at it for several rounds and there is a big question mark if Iran would want to continue. Some reports have indicated that Iran sees the Trump administration as being complicit in the Israeli offensive.

Netanyahu’s pointer that the regime in Teheran is “very weak” might not quite be valid as far as internal political stability is concerned; the country may be weakened as a result of developments in the region. Without a doubt Iran has been dented by a loss of its proxies in the Hamas in the Gaza and the Hezbollah in Lebanon.

A bigger blow came by way of Bashar al Assad fleeing Damascus depriving Iran of one its last strongholds. A reported debt of some $30 billion has also added to its economic woes.

The Israeli leadership cannot be under the impression that physically eliminating Ayatollah Khamenei — who is already said to be in frail health — could lead to regime change. Or, that the obliteration of nuclear and missile sites will engineer a popular movement strong enough to oust the clergy that has been in power since the overthrow of the Shah in 1979.

For all the civil rumblings over the last few years and in the occasional statements from leaders in exile, opposition to the existing regime has not been strong enough to serve as a rallying point of displeasure against the current goings on. The missile barrage against the Jewish state is a visible attempt by the regime in Iran to showcase its resolve to its people.

If the last 40-odd years is anything to go by in Iran, it is that hardliners in the clergy have had their sway for the most part. Hence a calculation that ridding Ayatollah Khamenei might bring about a “different” regime could be misplaced. Given that Israel has for long been the central rallying point, it is unlikely that Netanyahu is going to find a group of politicians in Teheran who will voluntarily dismantle their nuclear plants and missile sites or stop calling for the extermination of the Jewish state. To put an old adage differently: Even if things change, they will remain the same.

The writer is a senior journalist who has reported from Washington DC on North America and United Nations

Published on June 17, 2025