Reports claiming Israel had pressured the U.S. into regime change relied on hostile officials within the State Department and the Department of War who disliked the close U.S.–Israel alignment on Middle East policy.
By Hezy Laing
Recent articles in the New York Times and the Washington Post, claimed Netanyahu “dragged” Trump and the US into war, among other things by claiming that the regime could be overthrown, are being increasingly questioned.
Trump himself as well as several of the senior Trump administration officials were the ones who estimated that the regime could be overthrown – while the Israeli team presented a much more cautious picture on this issue.
These newspapers, which opposed the war and were critical of both Trump and Netanyahu, reportedly relied on hostile officials within the State Department and the Department of War who disliked the close U.S.–Israel alignment on Middle East policy.
According to political, security, and diplomatic sources from Israel, the U.S., and the region, quoted by the Israel Hayom newspaper, the strategic push for regime change in Iran originated inside the White House, not in Jerusalem.
Senior American officials—and Trump himself—believed that the Iranian regime could be overthrown, while Israeli assessments were notably more cautious.
The first key meeting included Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, Jared Kushner, and Steve Witkoff.
At this stage, the central question—whether the Iranian regime could be toppled—was openly debated.
Drawing on their involvement in U.S. efforts to engineer regime change in Venezuela, Hegseth argued that Iran’s regime could fall through internal unrest, support for ethnic militias, and a powerful military strike on the regime’s leaders and military installations.
“The regime of the Islamic mullahs must go,” he said.
Rubio was more skeptical, questioning whether an airstrike alone could achieve regime collapse and warning of the risks.
Reports indicate that the US administration has been working to achieve regime change in Iran, especially after the start of a military campaign (“Operation Epic Fury”) in February 2026, which included attacks on nuclear and military sites.
It was actually Israeli security officials (including assessments that reached the political levels) that questioned proposals to achieve regime change and noted that the task is extremely complex, even if intelligence efforts to destabilize continue.
In April 2026, the Mossad confirmed that it was indeed pursuing regime change in Iran, but clarified that it was a three-year, not an immediate, result of an exchange of blows.
The nuclear and military goals were paramount and the Mossad was more skeptical about the actual overthrow of the regime.
Mossad chief Barnea remarked that while the agency still seeks regime change, it never expected the strikes alone to topple the government immediately.
This report suggests the Mossad was “cool” on the idea of a swift collapse during active fighting, viewing it instead as a long-term goal, which actually contrasted with the US administration’s early messaging of a “quick win”.
Military analyst say regime change is indeed possible, considering the fact that Iran is made up a wide range of ethnicities and these types of countries are notorious for being hard to maintain and control.
