Military experts say ongoing US-Israeli airstrikes against Iran could lead to two possible outcomes: complete regime collapse from within or a severely weakened government stripped of military power. The campaign has intensified following the reported death of Iran's Supreme Leader, with analysts watching for signs of internal uprising.
Military analysts are closely monitoring a joint American-Israeli aerial campaign against Iran that has reached a pivotal moment, with experts identifying two potential outcomes that could reshape Middle East dynamics for years to come.
According to Brigadier General (retired) Eran Ortal, who spoke with The Media Line, “There is no precedent for regime change through an air campaign.” However, the current military operations are testing whether sustained pressure and leadership elimination can trigger Iran’s internal collapse.
The coordinated strikes, which began February 28 under US Operation Epic Fury and Israeli Operation Roaring Lion, have evolved beyond typical military degradation campaigns. Experts say the key question is whether communication breakdowns, leadership losses, and mounting pressure can fracture Tehran’s control enough to spark revolution from within.
Professor Danny Orbach, a military historian at Hebrew University of Jerusalem, explained the strategy to The Media Line: “The goal is not for the regime to fall, but to create conditions that will enable the Iranian people to topple it. If the Iranians don’t take advantage of the opportunity, the war might end with less ambitious goals achieved—the destruction of the Iranian navy, its missile arsenal, and the remnants of its nuclear program.”
CENTCOM characterized the initial assault as one of the most intensive American firepower deployments in the region in decades, utilizing cruise missiles and advanced fighter jets launched from air, land, and sea platforms.
The conflict entered a new phase after social media footage showed Iranian citizens celebrating in streets following confirmation that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was killed in an airstrike. This development has pushed the confrontation beyond conventional capability degradation into uncertain political territory.
Both Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and US President Donald Trump have urged Iranian citizens to capitalize on this moment and overthrow their government, though success remains far from guaranteed.
“The duration of the operation depends on its goal,” Ortal noted. “This goal could change as the success of the operation becomes apparent.”
Israeli sources report that initial strike phases involved hundreds of targets and over 1,200 munitions, suggesting a potentially extended campaign ahead.
Ortal outlined two possible scenarios emerging from current operations. The first involves leadership elimination and communication failures combining with public pressure to create governmental rupture—though he emphasized that airpower alone has never historically achieved regime change.
“Seeing Iranians celebrating the attack in the streets increases the optimism that this scenario could materialize,” Ortal said. “This could create a domino effect that cannot be foreseen in which the disappearance of senior leadership, major communications disruption, and extreme public pressure destabilize the leadership, who then abandons their positions.”
Should internal collapse fail to materialize, the alternative outcome would leave Iran’s government politically intact but strategically crippled. “This will leave the regime without military capabilities, weak and neutralized and fully subordinate to American whims and future coercion,” Ortal explained.
Orbach emphasized the strategic importance of targeting Iran’s naval capabilities, particularly regarding the Strait of Hormuz. “The navy is more important than what most people think,” he said. “The navy is the ability to project power, especially through the threat of blocking the Hormuz Strait. Its destruction will humiliate them and turn them into a country that cannot project power.”
The Hormuz Strait carries approximately one-fifth of global oil trade, making any disruption capable of affecting worldwide energy markets, shipping schedules, and commercial insurance costs. Eliminating Tehran’s maritime leverage would significantly reduce its ability to threaten neighbors or the global economy during future crises.
The strikes target the foundation of Iran’s decades-long regional strategy: proxy networks combined with missile and drone capabilities designed to deter direct attacks and impose escalation costs. Dismantling these tools fundamentally alters Iran’s negotiating position and battlefield options.
“Iran’s ability to influence the Middle East is tied to two abilities—its proxies and its missiles,” Ortal said. “Iran no longer has air defense systems, and its missile launchers are gradually depleting. Iran has no ability to face this, leaving the regime subdued to American pressure it will not be able to withstand.”
Iran’s nuclear program provides crucial context for current hostilities. The 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action temporarily limited Tehran’s enrichment activities in exchange for sanctions relief, but following US withdrawal in 2018, Iran expanded enrichment and reduced international oversight, escalating tensions that led to today’s confrontation.
Orbach argued that achieving complete regime collapse would require expanding targets beyond military assets to include internal enforcement mechanisms used for protest suppression and population control.
“The way to increase the odds of toppling the regime is to eliminate its leader and his heirs, in several rounds, rendering them weak and scared,” Orbach said, estimating slim survival chances for the current government. “In addition, the oppression mechanisms of the regime also need to be hit. The question is how long Israel and the US will persist in this effort.”
Iran’s domestic conditions may prove as significant as strike intensity. Years of sanctions, corruption, and heavy security expenditures have damaged the economy, while inflation, infrastructure deterioration, power shortages, and water crises have intensified public dissatisfaction—factors that could amplify political consequences if leadership and control systems continue deteriorating.
“Iran’s economy is in a catastrophic state and deteriorating further,” Orbach observed. “This will only worsen after the war, including raging inflation and the water crisis. Add to this a succession struggle and popular unrest, and it is hard to see the regime surviving in the long run.”
Even if political objectives become more modest over time, Ortal believes the military impact alone could transform regional dynamics for years. “Even if the goals of the operation will be downgraded, still Iran will be rendered extremely weak and subdued for a substantial number of years,” he said.
Analysts identify four key indicators that will reveal the campaign’s direction: whether strikes expand beyond military targets to internal enforcement apparatus; whether Iran’s naval influence around Hormuz Strait gets neutralized; whether domestic unrest grows from scattered incidents into sustained pressure; and whether Washington and Jerusalem begin describing success in narrower terms focused on long-term military degradation.
The central uncertainty remains what Ortal highlighted: while airpower can eliminate leaders, disrupt communications, and destroy capabilities, it cannot vote, demonstrate, or govern. Coming days will determine whether these strikes merely dismantle Iran’s security infrastructure—or create opportunities for Iranians themselves to dismantle the system controlling it, potentially defying historical patterns that Ortal says have defined previous air campaigns.