Around 60 dead in Tehran strike as Israeli attacks signal push for regime change

Israel’s strike on a Tehran housing complex killed around 60 people, including 20 children, according to Iranian state media. Though aimed at Iran’s nuclear programme, the scale and messaging suggest a deeper goal: regime change.

A deadly Israeli strike on a residential complex in Tehran has killed around 60 people, including 20 children, according to Iran’s state television. The attack, which marks one of the deadliest in the capital in recent memory, comes amid a sweeping Israeli campaign against Iran that appears to extend beyond targeting its nuclear programme.

While the immediate objective of Israel’s surprise strikes was to significantly hinder Iran’s ability to develop a nuclear weapon, analysts suggest the broader intent may be to destabilise the regime itself.

The Friday strikes targeted not only nuclear facilities and missile production sites but also senior military commanders and nuclear scientists—key elements of Iran's internal stability. According to regional experts, the selection of these targets signals a strategic effort to shake the foundations of the Iranian leadership.

“There’s a strong assumption that Israel hopes these actions could lead to regime change,” said Michael Singh of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and a former U.S. official. “They appear to be trying to inspire unrest, encouraging the Iranian people to rise up.”

In a direct appeal to Iranians, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu described the Islamic Republic as a repressive regime and called on citizens to seize what he described as an opportunity for freedom.

“The Islamic regime, which has oppressed you for nearly 50 years, threatens to destroy our country,” Netanyahu said in a televised address. “As we remove that threat, we clear the path for you to reclaim your freedom. The regime has never been weaker.”

Despite the devastating impact of the strikes, many analysts remain sceptical about Israel’s ability to foment regime change in a nation where deep-rooted hostility toward Israel is not limited to the ruling elite, but also exists within broader segments of the population.

Michael Singh noted that while the targeting of military and nuclear leadership could weaken the regime, “no one knows the precise conditions under which public opposition would successfully coalesce in Iran.”

The Friday operation marked just the first phase of what Israel describes as a sustained campaign. Israeli officials have acknowledged that completely dismantling Iran’s nuclear programme is beyond the scope of military operations alone.

“There’s no way to destroy a nuclear programme purely through military means,” said Tzachi Hanegbi, Israel’s National Security Adviser. He added that the campaign is intended to create leverage for a potential diplomatic solution, ideally involving the United States.

“These individuals were pillars of the regime’s internal stability,” Shine said. “Removing them sends a shock through the system.”

However, Jonathan Panikoff, a former U.S. intelligence officer now at the Atlantic Council, warned of the dangers of such an outcome. “Even if Israel succeeds in weakening or removing the current regime, the replacement could be even more hostile and unpredictable,” he said.

While Israel maintains that the future of Iran must be decided by its own people, its latest actions reflect a growing desire not only to delay Tehran’s nuclear ambitions but potentially reshape the region’s political landscape.

Copied