The Case for Regime Change in Iran and the Urgency of Regional Realignment

For over two decades, the Islamic Republic of Iran has exploited diplomacy while secretly advancing its nuclear program. Parallel to this, it has entrenched itself across the region through an expansive network of proxies, from Hezbollah to the Houthis. Iran was reportedly aware of Hamas’s planning ahead of the October 7th massacre, underscoring its role as the orchestrator-in-chief of regional instability. Despite sanctions and negotiations, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has pursued nuclear capabilities with unwavering resolve, as confirmed by recent IAEA reports and European officials. French Armed Forces Minister Sébastien Lecornu bluntly acknowledged: Iran possesses all components needed to build a nuclear bomb.

The recent strikes, though bold, have uncertain results. Conflicting reports obscure the damage inflicted on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. What is certain is that Iran retains much, if not all, of its offensive capabilities. Believingotherwise is dangerously naïve. Iran’s nuclear knowledge cannot be bombed out of existence. As Kelsey Davenport of the Arms Control Association notes, Iran can rebuild faster than ever.

This is why regime change in Iran is not a rhetorical flourish but a strategic necessity. So long as the Islamic Republic survives, the region remains hostage to its ambitions. And that change must come from within.

Iranians are not silent. From the Green Movement to the more recent “Woman, Life, Freedom” uprisings, the people have made clear their yearning for a different future. Crushed, censored, surveilled, yet unbroken, they represent the only legitimate force capable of breaking this cycle of aggression and repression. Opposition figures like Reza Pahlavi have called this a historic window of opportunity to dismantle a regime that has failed its people and endangered its neighbors.

But ending Tehran’s malign influence also requires addressing the regional autocracies that shield and amplify it. Chief among them: Algeria.

Algeria has positioned itself as Iran’s key ally in North Africa. Its regime, repressive and unaccountable, has tightened its ties with Tehran while projecting strong influence over neighboring Tunisia, that became a swing country. Under President Kaïs Saïd, Tunisia has drifted dangerously toward authoritarianism, encouraged and supported by Algiers. Iranian-linked institutions are now operating inside Tunisia’s borders, including the controversial Ahl al-Bayt Center and newly established Shiite mosques. A once-proud secular and Sunni country is now vulnerable to ideological infiltration and sectarian manipulation.

At the heart of this Iran-Algeria-Tunisia axis lies the Polisario Front, a separatist movement armed and supported by Iran and Algeria, and increasingly legitimized by Tunisian diplomacy. This is not passive alignment; it is a coordinated challenge to regional stability and to Western-aligned states like Morocco.

These developments are not isolated. They reflect a coordinated architecture aimed at exporting instability and opposing Western engagement. Algeria plays a dangerous double game: forging closer ties with Iran while courting Western powers through energy diplomacy. It is time to call this what it is: strategic ambiguity.

What the MENA region needs is a clean break from the doctrines of authoritarian consolidation and ambiguity. A democratic Iran, free from the grip of the clerical regime, could serve as a linchpin for a new, inclusive security architecture. But such a future also requires containing the authoritarian regimes that act as Tehran’s enablers.

This realignment must also include a just solution for the Palestinian people, one that is not hijacked by Iranian-backed militias like Hamas, but rooted in legitimate statehood, accountability, and coexistence. The suffering of the Palestinians must no longer serve as a cynical pretext for geopolitical manipulation by toxic regimes that exploit their cause while doing nothing to advance it. A genuine solution is needed not slogans, not proxy wars.

On Iran’s periphery, autonomous aspirations are growing. Among Kurds and Baluchis, suppressed identities are resurfacing. Syria’s Kurds are closer than ever to achieving autonomy; Iraq’s Kurds have set a precedent. In the event of the regime’s collapse, new federated or independent structures could emerge, not as imperial designs, but as organic responses to longstanding grievances.

Meanwhile, in the Gulf, former adversaries of Iran are recalibrating. Saudi Arabia’s recent normalization with Tehran and the UAE’s pragmatic re-engagement reflect a shift driven less by trust in Iran’s intentions than by concerns over regional stability and perceptions of American disengagement. While these moves may offer short-term de-escalation, they risk legitimizing a regime that continues to export instability. Without a clear and principled counterweight, this détente could embolden Tehran rather than contain it.

We must not cling to illusions. The Islamic Republic will not reform itself. It will not be deterred by sanctions or rhetorical condemnations. While Tehran may not be planning a direct repeat of October 7, it is almost certainly exploring options to strike back, timed for maximum political and psychological impact, particularly when U.S. vulnerabilities are exposed. These calculations are unlikely to be uniform across the regime; rather, they are the subject of intense internal debate among the various factions of power, hardliners, pragmatists, and the security establishment, each weighing the risks, timing, and costs of escalation. For the Islamic Republic, harming American or Israeli interests is not only strategic, it is deeply woven into its revolutionary identity.

Regime change in Iran, and the containment of its regional enablers, is the only path toward stability, sovereignty, and shared prosperity in the MENA region. Stability in the Middle East is incompatible with the survival of the Islamic Republic. The time for half-measures is over. Should Donald Trump choose to fully back this historic moment, by weakening the Iranian regime and accentuating its vulnerabilities and enabling a decisive regional realignment, he could not only reshape the global order but also earn something few would have imagined: the Nobel Peace Prize.