Professor Matthew Tasooji, Ph.D., Scholar of Economics, Management, and Iranian Political Affairs
The current tensions surrounding Iran are often framed as a geopolitical standoff between states. But a closer look reveals a more complex reality—one in which four distinct actors are entangled in overlapping conflicts: the United States, Israel, the Iranian regime, and the Iranian people themselves. Each has different objectives, tools, and constraints, and understanding these differences is key to identifying a path forward.
For the United States, the central priorities remain preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon and maintaining a degree of stability in an already volatile region. Washington’s approach has historically combined diplomacy, sanctions, and strategic deterrence, with an eye toward avoiding another prolonged military entanglement in the Middle East.
Israel’s concerns are more immediate and existential. It seeks to prevent a nuclear-armed Iran, dismantle Tehran’s network of regional proxy forces, and curb what it sees as Iran’s broader ambitions for regional dominance. Some voices within Israel also advocate for regime change in Iran, viewing the current leadership as the root cause of ongoing instability. Israel’s tools include its advanced air force, intelligence capabilities, and close strategic alignment with the United States.
The Iranian regime, for its part, is driven by a different set of priorities, chief among them survival. It seeks to maintain its grip on power through internal suppression, regional proxy networks, and strategic deterrence, including its nuclear program. Critics argue that the regime has also leveraged the Israeli Palestinian conflict as a rhetorical and political tool, positioning itself as a defender of the Palestinian cause while pursuing its own strategic interests.
Yet often overlooked in this equation is the fourth actor: the Iranian people. Distinct from the regime, many Iranians have repeatedly expressed demands for political change, greater freedoms, and an end to authoritarian rule. At the same time, there is strong opposition among many Iranians to foreign military intervention, reflecting both national sentiment and the bitter lessons of recent history in the region.
Indeed, history offers sobering reminders about the limits of external force. Aerial bombardment, while capable of degrading military infrastructure, has rarely resulted in lasting political transformation or regime change. Likewise, large-scale military interventions involving ground troops, as seen in Iraq and Afghanistan, have proven enormously costly, both in human lives and long-term regional instability, often failing to achieve their intended outcomes.
This leaves policymakers with a difficult but unavoidable conclusion: sustainable change in Iran is unlikely to come from outside military pressure alone. Instead, it may depend on recognizing and supporting the internal dynamics already at play within Iranian society.
Advocates of this perspective argue that the international community should prioritize de-escalation, seek to prevent broader war, and place greater emphasis on the aspirations of the Iranian people themselves. This includes amplifying calls for human rights, supporting civil society, and avoiding actions that could unintentionally strengthen hardline elements within the regime.
The path forward is neither simple nor risk-free. But if the goal is a more stable, peaceful, and representative Iran, the focus may need to shift—from attempts to impose change from the outside to efforts that acknowledge and support the agency of those within the country who are already seeking it.
In a conflict defined by competing state interests, the most decisive force may ultimately be the one that has the most at stake: the people of Iran.