RT: With An Attack On Iran, Israel’s Regime Change Option Is On The Table

According to Saed News,A Palestinian and regional analyst wrote in an article for the Russian network that the claim made by the U.S., the Zionist regime, and their European partners—that the attack on Iran is a preventive effort to stop the country from obtaining nuclear weapons—is completely false.

“Robert Inlakesh,” a political analyst, journalist, and British documentary filmmaker, wrote in an article on the Russia Today website:
“Israel’s attack on Iran under the pretext of a preventive effort to stop the country from acquiring nuclear weapons is more reminiscent of the 2003 invasion of Iraq under Saddam Hussein with the claim that the country possessed chemical weapons. This Israeli aggression against Iran is illegal.”

He continued:
“For the first time in four decades, Benjamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of Israel, has claimed that Iran is on the verge of obtaining nuclear weapons. However, any effort to reach an agreement that would bring increased oversight and restrictions on Iran’s nuclear program has been systematically dismantled by Israel and its powerful lobbying groups in Western countries.”

The analyst also wrote:
“To properly assess Israel’s attack on Iran, facts must be established. Netanyahu claims he has carried out a preventive attack but has provided no evidence to support his claims that Iran is close to obtaining nuclear weapons. Simply stating it does not prove it and is exactly like what the U.S. did when it invaded Iraq, claiming Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.”

Robert Inlakesh, the political analyst, journalist, and documentary filmmaker added:
“In March, Tulsi Gabbard, Director of U.S. National Intelligence, testified before the Senate Intelligence Committee that the intelligence community continues to assess that Iran is not building nuclear weapons and that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the Supreme Leader, has not authorized a nuclear weapons program that was suspended in 2003.”

He noted:
“Furthermore, Iran has actively participated in indirect talks with the U.S. to reach a new version of the 2015 nuclear agreement. Donald Trump announced that Washington would unilaterally withdraw from the agreement in 2018 and instead, at Israel’s behest, pursue a ‘maximum pressure’ sanctions campaign against Iran.”

The documentary filmmaker continued:
“Despite Netanyahu and Trump’s claims that Iran violated the nuclear deal, the International Atomic Energy Agency issued a report stating that Iran was in full compliance at that time. If you follow any talks with neoconservatives, Israeli warmongers, and Washington-based think tanks, their opposition to Obama-era nuclear agreements always ends with issues of Iran’s ballistic missile program and its support for non-state actors in the region.”

Robert Inlakesh further wrote:
“Israeli officials repeatedly express concerns that Iran may be able to produce nuclear weapons within a short timeframe (years, months, or even weeks). But their main issue has always been Iran’s support for groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, which seek to establish a Palestinian state. Proving all of this is simple. Israel alone cannot destroy Iran’s extensive nuclear program. It is unclear whether the U.S. could do so even if it entered the war. One example of U.S. failure to penetrate Iranian fortified mountain facilities—similar to many of Iran’s nuclear sites—is Washington’s failure to destroy missile storage bases in Yemen using bunker-buster bombs dropped by B-2 bombers.”

Robert Inlakesh wrote:
“Almost immediately after the war against Iran began, Netanyahu sent a message in English to the Iranian people asking them to overthrow their government through internal unrest. Since then, the Israeli Prime Minister has stated that regime change is his real goal and claims this operation may lead to regime change. Israel’s intelligence and military admit that the Israeli Air Force alone is incapable of destroying Iran’s nuclear program. So why, if Israel cannot achieve its aims, has it launched this so-called preventive war?”

The analyst said there are two possible explanations:
“The first is that the Israeli Prime Minister initiated this attack on Iran as the last confrontation in his ‘seven-front war,’ hoping to end regional conflict through a deadly exchange that ultimately harms both sides. In this scenario, the desired outcome is to end the war with the claim that Netanyahu has destroyed or significantly degraded Iran’s nuclear program. He also, as before, claims to have destroyed many Iranian missiles and drones. All of this is propaganda to present Netanyahu’s claimed victory narrative.”

He added:
“The second explanation is that this is a full-scale regime change war aimed at involving the United States. Israel’s military prestige was severely damaged by the Al-Aqsa storm operation on October 7, 2023, and since then, no victory has been achieved. Hamas remains active in Gaza with roughly the same strength as at the war’s start. Hezbollah, though hit by Israeli military actions, remains highly active, while Yemen’s Ansar Allah has increased its power. This is a comprehensive and stunning defeat for the Israeli military and an embarrassment for the U.S.”

Robert Inlakesh wrote:
“As we know, Iran is a regional power supporting the Axis of Resistance. Armed resistance against Israeli occupation will never end as long as people live under oppressive rule in the occupied territories. The destruction of Iran, however, would be devastating for regional unity against Israel. But the main question remains whether regime change is possible or not. Here, a serious question mark exists, and it seems more likely to lead to a steep and slippery slope toward nuclear war.”

He added:
“What Israel and the U.S. claim as a preventive war has no evidence supporting it. If anything, Iran may now be rushing to acquire nuclear weapons for defensive purposes. Even if the U.S. joins Israel’s war against Iran and delivers a heavy blow to Iran’s nuclear program, it does not mean Iran will simply abandon the program. Instead, Tehran could simply rebuild and acquire the bomb years later. Another possible outcome of this war could be regime change in Israel, which now seems to be on the table.”