At five in the afternoon, Cairo time (60).. Iran: The End of the Rule of the Ayatollahs (1–2)

 
Relations between the United States and Iran are witnessing a qualitative escalation that goes beyond the pattern of “tension management” that has governed them over the past two decades.
The new sanctions, the U.S. naval repositioning in the Gulf and the Red Sea, Israel’s public messages about a “strategic opportunity,” and the intensifying indirect friction across regional arenas—all are indicators that the confrontation is moving from a phase of containment to a phase of testing final options.

The question is no longer:
How can Iran be contained?

Rather:
Is it possible to end the governing formula in place since 1979 and replace it with a political structure less hostile to the West?

First: From Deterrence to System Reshaping

1. Transformation of the Strategic Objective

For years, the declared objective of the United States was to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.
Israel, for its part, focused on preventing a permanent Iranian military presence on its borders.

Recent developments, however, indicate that the objective has become broader than the nuclear program.
The nuclear program has become one manifestation of the problem, not the problem itself.

From the perspective of Washington and Tel Aviv, the problem has come to revolve around the structure of the regime itself:

• The doctrine of the Guardianship of the Jurist (Wilayat al-Faqih)
• The Revolutionary Guard’s control over the levers of the economy and security
• The network of regional proxies
• The transnational revolutionary ideology

Accordingly, any technical settlement regarding uranium enrichment will not end the threat as long as the regime retains its doctrine and its instruments.

2. The Equation of Composite Pressure

The current strategy rests on three parallel levels:

A) Economic Pressure
Tightening sanctions, drying up funding channels, targeting smuggling and energy networks, and preventing access to sensitive technology.

B) Indirect Military Pressure
Striking regional arms, undermining defense systems, and delivering precise deterrent messages without sliding into a comprehensive war.

C) Psychological–Political Pressure
Highlighting the regime’s fragility, amplifying internal divisions, and sending signals that the post-current leadership phase is approaching.

This equation does not aim at immediate overthrow, but rather at cumulative exhaustion that pushes the regime toward one of two options:

Either a fundamental modification in its behavior,
Or a gradual internal collapse.

Third: Why Is Deterrence No Longer Sufficient?

For two decades, Washington relied on a clear equation:

• Sanctions in exchange for negotiations
• Pressure in exchange for partial concessions
• Temporary agreements that postpone the explosion

However, this equation has proven ineffective in achieving the desired results for several reasons:

1.    The Iranian regime used every negotiation period to rebuild its capabilities.

2.    The Revolutionary Guard expanded economically and securitically during the sanctions years.

3.    Regional arms evolved from instruments of influence into a counter-deterrence network.

4.    Ballistic missile ranges surpassed all red lines.

Israel, for its part, concluded that experience proved “time works in Tehran’s favor,” and that any delay grants it greater room for maneuver.

For this reason, a shared conviction is now forming in some decision-making circles:
that the solution lies not in managing the crisis, but in ending it at its roots.

Fourth: What Is Meant by Ending the Regime?

This does not mean occupying Iran.
Nor repeating the Iraq model.

What is meant is dismantling the ideological governing system founded on:

• The Guardianship of the Jurist as a supra-constitutional authority
• The Revolutionary Guard as a state within a state
• A parallel economic network outside oversight
• A transnational expansionist project

In other words, what is required is not a change of government, but a change in the structure of power.

The equation is clear:
Gradual exhaustion… leading to internal fracture.

If this strategy fails within a reasonable period (the duration of negotiations), the solution would be rapid, deep, and impactful American strikes, leaving the remainder to Israel.

Yet the question remains:
Can a regime founded on crises collapse under the pressure of crises?

This is what we will discuss tomorrow, God willing.

To be continued.

Paris: 5:00 p.m. Cairo time.