As tensions in the Middle East fluctuate, all eyes are on Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his long-standing stance toward Iran. Known for his hardline position on Iranian threats—especially its nuclear ambitions—Netanyahu has consistently framed the Islamic Republic as a major existential threat to Israel. But in a world growing weary of war and increasingly open to diplomacy, the question now looms large: will Netanyahu let Iran be in peace, or will he quietly continue pushing for regime change?
Netanyahu’s History With Iran
Netanyahu has built much of his political career on warning the world about the dangers of Iran’s government. From his famous UN speeches showcasing diagrams of nuclear bombs, to backing covert operations, sabotage campaigns, and targeted strikes on Iranian assets, he has been one of the most vocal and aggressive leaders in opposing the Islamic Republic’s regional influence.
His rhetoric has often suggested that real peace in the Middle East can’t be achieved as long as the current Iranian regime remains in power. This position has led many to believe that Netanyahu’s ultimate goal is not just deterrence—but transformation.
Regime Change: Open Goal or Quiet Strategy?
While Israel has never officially declared a policy of regime change in Iran, its actions have hinted at an effort to destabilize Iranian leadership from within—through intelligence operations, cyber warfare, and support for dissident networks. Netanyahu has publicly supported the Iranian people’s protests, framing them as a fight for freedom against tyranny.
Yet, overtly pushing for regime change comes with risks. It could backfire by rallying Iranian public support behind its government or provoke a larger conflict that spirals out of control. For that reason, any such strategy would likely be pursued covertly, through pressure rather than invasion.
The Peace Option
There’s a slim but significant possibility that Netanyahu, recognizing shifting global dynamics and growing pressure for de-escalation, could pivot toward a more pragmatic approach. If Iran softens its stance or moves toward diplomacy, Netanyahu may find it strategically wiser to hold back, especially if the U.S. and other allies encourage restraint.
However, that would require a major trust shift—and decades of hostility don’t fade overnight.
Conclusion
Netanyahu remains one of the world’s most outspoken critics of Iran’s regime, and while a full-scale push for regime change may never be publicly declared, his administration is unlikely to let its guard down. Whether he allows Iran a path to peace—or continues applying pressure to shake its foundations—will depend on what Iran does next, and how much the world is willing to tolerate further escalation.
