Iran: State disintegration, not regime change

Peloni:  This is an important article

Martin Sherman

Iranian ethnic areas (Image by Mapper 01 – Own work, Wikipedia, CC BY-SA 4.0)

Israel cannot rely on regime change to ensure its security. It must aim at dismantling Iran into separate ethnic entities to ensure that, in the future, it will not become the grave menace that it was in the past.

Despite the uneasy and artificial “peace” agreement, imposed recently (and arguably prematurely) by Donald Trump, the debate still rages, and speculation still swirls around the Iran-Israel conflict—particularly over the irksome question as to how it will play out in the long run.

Subscribe to Israpundit Daily Digest for Free

 A war concluded, not resolved

In this regard, it should be clear to any sober observer that the current Iranian regime cannot ever agree to genuinely forgo its pursuit of nuclear weapons—even if it does so temporarily, in the short run, as a survival tactic. After all, for the last quarter century, it has been the flagship enterprise of the regime.

Accordingly, abandoning its nuclear ambitions now, under duress, will be indelible proof of error, failure, and worse, of weakness. Clearly, for a regime that rules solely on the basis of might, this is an unacceptable situation, tolerable only as a transitory deception.

Indeed, in a recent paper entitled The Israel–Iran War: Concluded but not Resolved, a well-known research institute cautioned: “…Iran is expected to portray the battle as a success, regardless of its military outcomes” and pondered “… whether Israel’s gains can be preserved through diplomatic arrangements, or whether it will need to enforce them militarily.”

Adding to this concern are numerous reports that the aerial bombardment of Tehran’s nuclear installations may have been less devastating than originally thought—raising the specter of a resurgent Iranian nuclear program.

A tapestry of ethnicities

This is the reason that regime change must be a minimal imperative for Israel at the end of the hostilities—which are likely only to delay, not eradicate, the perils that precipitated the recent conflict.

It is because of this that, to ensure the permanent defanging of Iran, Israel must aspire to a goal beyond regime change. It must focus its efforts on inducing the disintegration of the country in its present configuration into several self-governing ethnic entities—principally non-Persian ones.

It is important to note that Iran’s population is far from monolithic. To the contrary, it is a heterogeneous mixture of diverse ethnicities, almost equally divided between Persians (50-60%) and non-Persians. Thus, as a recent publication by the MEMRI research institute points out, the overall population comprises- among others – Kurds in the west, Baloch in the southeast, Ahwazi Arabs in the south, Azeris in the northwest, and Turkmen in the northeast. Other groups include the Lurs and the Lak people.

Conditions ripe for secession?

As the MEMRI document points out, there have been tensions between Tehran and the more remote ethnicities, who have suffered varying degrees of oppression for decades. Among their grievances are: Having no rights to speak their language, no political power, and often being targeted with violence by the central regime. All this enhances their motivation for resistance. Moreover, as they typically live in the border regions, this makes it easier for them to conduct contacts with neighboring countries and challenge Tehran’s control. Harboring a sense of betrayal at the hands of both the Ayatollahs and the Shah, they have a deep distrust of central authority emanating from Tehran.

Clearly, these are conditions ripe not only for insurrection but for possible secession, particularly as the Iranian military has been significantly weakened.

This is something Israel—and hopefully the US—must seize on, employing covert subversive tactics, presumably by means of the Mossad, CIA, and perhaps other Western intelligence agencies.

Israel cannot rely solely on regime change to ensure its post-war security, for at least two reasons.

The first relates to what the successor regime might be, with no guarantee that it will be at all amicable towards the Jewish state, particularly given the widespread negative view of Israel prevailing in large segments of the Iranian public.

The second relates to the uncertainty of the fate of any successor regime, no matter how benign, and the possibility of it itself being overthrown by some other regime, which might well be far more malevolent than its deposed predecessor.

Accordingly, in order to address these unknowns, Israel must go beyond the goal of regime change. Instead, it must aspire for Iran to be dismantled into separate self-governing ethnic entities to ensure that, in the future, it will not become the grave menace that it was in the past.

Dr. Martin Sherman spent seven years in operational capacities in the Israeli defense establishment. He’s the founder of the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), a member of the Habithonistim-Israel Defense & Security Forum (IDSF) research team, and a participant in the Israel Victory Project.

 

June 26, 2025 | 6 Comments »

Leave a Reply

6 Comments / 6 Comments

  1. What makes anyone think that dismembering Iran will pacify the country. Iran proper will still exist, plus there would then be a handful of other entities, some, or all, of which could become hostile. Breaking up a country is really hard. Best just to go for regime change.

    • @Raphael

      What makes anyone think that dismembering Iran will pacify the country.

      It won’t specifically pacify the country. Instead, it will render the relevance of any hostility as less relevant.

      Best just to go for regime change.

      The reliability of simply changing the govt in a nation such as Iran is worrisome. The stability of any govt arising out of a regime change operation, which might still take form in Iran, is highly questionable. Such is the nature of a geopolitically relevant nation such as Iran. It would be better to break the nation up, allowing its minorities, who have suffered a history of oppression preceding the rise of the Ayatollahs, to gain their independence, enabling them each to act independently of each other.

    • @Raphael and Peloni From the statements I have been reading on MEMRI from the organizations representing the independence movements in Iran, they want a federation not complete independence and a secular democratic Iran which is what the Crown Prince wants to usher in, and have a referendum about as to form. He will only head the 100 day transition government. And they are very happy with Israel and America.

      The problem is the IRGC crackdown and the loss of internet and therefore communication among the people – the term, “masses” makes me nauseous (actually “nauseates me” would be correct but who talks that way? The popular version will eventually enter the dictionary like my late mother’s bete noir, “irregardless”

      The one that drives me up the wall, though it’s already entered the dictionary, is “the reason is because”…” instead of “the reason is that…”

      Grammar Matters (wordplay intended) 😀

      • @Sebastien

        they want a federation not complete independence and a secular democratic Iran which is what the Crown Prince wants to usher in, and have a referendum about as to form.

        Correct. This would however preserve the power of the entire state, and the wealth of that state, in the hands of the leadership of the Iranian state, no matter if the Prince is successful in his aims or is either defeated or subsequently executed and replaced. Notably, whoever might be chosen today might in any event be overthrown or replaced tomorrow.

        The best option is for the mega state of Iran to be reduced to its ethnic minority regions as separate states to dilute the import of the outcome of whatever political turmoil might come in the future in what is today Iran.

  2. There us one big issue which speaks, from Israel’s point of view, against splitting ip Iran into its ethnic segments: all of them would be candidates to be members of the UN, as if the Muslim majority is not yet strong enough. This could only be countered by countries like the USA or Russia or China doing the same to get themselves automatic majorities…