Israel had no realistic plan for regime change when it attacked Iran. This was shared by multiple Israeli security sources with the Guardian.
According to them, if Iran's new leadership retains power, the long-term measure of the success of the conflict may depend on the fate of the 440kg of enriched uranium that the country had before the US and Israeli strikes in June 2025. This uranium is enough to build 10 nuclear warheads and Iran could use it to accelerate the development of weapons if the material remains in the country.
"These 440kg of uranium are one of the clearest litmus tests of how this war will end, whether it will be successful," said a former senior Israeli defense and intelligence official. In his words, "we need to be in a position where either this material is outside of Iran or you have a regime where you are confident that it is protected (inside Iran) in a very meaningful way".
He also pointed out that "this war is a high-stakes game because if it succeeds, it will completely change the Middle East for the better. But if we bomb everything and the regime stays in power and they keep that 400kg of uranium, I think we will start the countdown to Iran trying to get a nuclear weapon."
Yoab Rosenberg, the former deputy head of Israel's military intelligence, was even more direct, describing any end to the war that leaves uranium in Iranian hands as a Pyrrhic victory.
"The worst outcome of this war would be a June 2025-style victory, leaving the Iranian regime weak with 450kg of enriched uranium in its hands," he wrote in a social media post, adding that the Iranian regime "100% will pursue a nuclear bomb and our victory will become our loss."
Because the views of Ali Khamenei's son, Mojtaba Khamenei, who succeeded his father after he was assassinated, is unclear at this point about building a nuclear bomb, another former senior intelligence official said that with Ali Khamenei, "we knew almost everything about the decision-making. He did a lot of things that we were worried about, and that's why there was a war. But he never made a decision to go for a bomb, no matter what."
"With Mojtaba, I'm not so sure we have the knowledge to assess what he would do with the nuclear program. "He could go for a bomb right now," he added.
Israeli and American bombing of Iran would slow down the work on nuclear weapons, but even with limited technical capacity, the political decision to proceed with the bomb would escalate the long-term threat to Israel, the former intelligence official noted.
Despite these risks, a war between the United States and Israel enjoys broad support in Israel's military leadership, according to several current and former defense and intelligence officials.
According to current and former Israeli defense and intelligence experts, it was never realistic to expect that an air war could immediately topple the Iranian government.
"This is self-deception. We had a plan for how to destroy ballistic missiles, how to deal with nuclear sites, how to take care of Iran's military industry. "But I've never heard that we know how to conduct a [regime change] campaign from the air," one intelligence source said.
"We've never known how to get into the minds of 90 million people. So how do we know whether they're going to take to the streets or not? We hope they are," he said.
Another popular uprising during a war has always been extremely unlikely, said Sima Shain, an Iran specialist and former head of research at Israel's Mossad intelligence agency. There has been no sign of Iranians taking to the streets or significant defections from the security forces that could undermine their control of the country since the US-Israeli campaign began.
"I'm among those who don't think regime change can happen through bombing from the outside," Shain said. But she did not rule out long-term security and economic consequences.
"It's not black and white. It's possible that Iran ends the war so weak, everything is so fragile, that it will make it easier for regime change from outside," she said.
Many in the Israeli intelligence and defense community who did not expect regime change also feared that a weakened Iran posed a significant nuclear risk if it kept its enriched uranium.
However, they supported the Israeli and US attack ahead of further negotiations, arguing that airstrikes could destroy many of Iran's missiles and much of the industry that produced them, as well as further devastate its economy.
Israel's priority now is to weaken Iran and its proxies as soon as possible, even though war risks spurring Iran's long-term efforts to develop nuclear weapons, many current and former officials said.
"After October 7, Israel is not the same country it was before. The policy has completely changed. "There is zero tolerance, about 70% or 80% of Israelis are not willing to accept any nonsense from our opponents who want to kill us," one of them said when asked about the long-term strategic consequences of the war.
"The Israeli army is on the verge of ending this campaign. They won't say that because it's a political directive, but from a military point of view they have accomplished almost the entire mission. Two weeks and then it's all over," he said.