The unfolding Israel-Iran confrontation is, arguably, the most critical foreign policy issue for the West, yet Iran’s geopolitical motivations are often misunderstood. For one, no party stands to emerge victorious from a direct conflict between Israel and Iran. Moreover, talk of regime change holds little meaning if achieved solely through external force; if such a transformation is to occur, it must be driven by the Iranian people themselves.

Iran is commonly depicted in Western narratives as an aggressive state, intent on establishing regional dominance. This portrayal, however, fails to account for the complexity of Iran’s history and strategic outlook. For decades, Iran has been subject to Western and Russian interventions: foreign powers have overthrown leaders, fueled internal dissent, and imposed sanctions. Additionally, the longstanding Arab-Persian and Shia-Sunni rivalries have shaped Iran’s relationships with its neighbors, making simplistic analyses woefully inadequate.

Until recently, Iran had, for the first time in its modern history, begun consolidating a sense of power, attempting to secure its future on its own terms. Central to this has been its “Axis of Resistance”—an alliance built on a principle reminiscent of NATO’s Article 5: an attack on one member is seen as an attack on all. While the West and Israel view this as Iranian expansionism, Iran sees it as a “forward defense” strategy aimed at deterring external interference. It’s a tenet of the so-called “Khamenei Doctrine” of “no peace, no war” or, as it’s otherwise known, “strategic patience.”

Similarly, Iran’s pursuit of nuclear capability reflects a strategy of absolute deterrence. Leveraging its substantial intellectual and scientific resources, Iran seeks a nuclear program not dependent on foreign support—a self-reliant, permanent deterrent to maintain balance in the Middle East. Should the Axis of Resistance weaken, Iran would likely still wield influence over Iraq, Lebanon, Syria, and perhaps Yemen, as its societal integration there is too entrenched to dissolve quickly.

Western insistence on regime change is fueled by a fundamental misunderstanding of Iran’s internal dynamics. One cannot realistically advocate for change within a regime one does not understand. Iran’s political system hinges on a unique partnership between its religious establishment and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). The importance of Shia Islam in Iran’s unity and identity cannot be overstated; since adopting the faith in the 15th century, the Iranian people have been unified under it. Even liberal or secular Iranians pay homage to the Imam Reza shrine in Mashhad, reinforcing the religious establishment’s legitimacy and influence.

The IRGC, on the other hand, functions as the backbone of Iran’s forward-defense strategy, coordinating the Axis of Resistance. In a region where power dictates survival, the IRGC’s projection of strength through its network of allied militias is designed to ensure Iran’s place as a leading regional power.

This power structure has remained relatively unaltered since 1979. However, it has arguably stagnated, failing to adapt to recent shifts in the Gulf, most notably the Abraham Accords. A third group—liberal-minded progressives—is emerging in Iranian society. Unconcerned with who holds power, these progressives seek the economic stability to live unhampered by sanctions arising from Iran’s geopolitical stance. Their popular rallying cry, “Neither Gaza, nor Lebanon, I give my life to Iran,” captures their nationalist sentiment and pragmatic vision for Iran’s future. In the event of an Israeli attack, however, this faction could quickly unify in defense of Iran, regardless of their political leanings.

The notion that regime change could be achieved through outside influence is dangerously simplistic. Meaningful change in Iran requires an internal evolution—a careful, consensual process that respects Iran’s unique political culture. The current leadership structure, while rooted in the 1979 revolution, could evolve as new leaders emerge. Some envision a future where the religious establishment adopts a less direct political role, akin to Iraq’s model, perhaps even relaxing its commitment to “Wilayat al-Faqih,” the doctrine granting ultimate authority to the Supreme Leader. Meanwhile, the IRGC would likely retain its role as the nation’s protector, while an empowered president with liberal leanings—someone like Masoud Pezeshkian—could advocate for normalized relations with the West.

Nevertheless, this triadic power structure—religious, military, and civil—will likely persist, and any evolution must be an Iranian initiative, free from external pressure. Ironically, Israel has a vested interest in Iran’s stability. A revolution could see the IRGC emerge as Iran’s dominant force, unrestrained by religious checks.

Moreover, Iran’s transactional relationship with Russia—sharing technology, among other exchanges—could deepen if the regime feels existentially threatened. Even if Israel were to win a military conflict against Iran, victory would come at a high cost, as it would involve combating not only Iran but also its proxies in Hamas, Hezbollah, Iraqi paramilitaries, Syrian forces, and the Houthis. Such a pyrrhic victory would offer no lasting solution.

The West’s diplomatic approach to Iran has, thus far, fallen short. By financing protests and supporting regime change, Western actors overlook the complex realities of Iran’s political structure and the risks of unintended consequences. The U.S. approach may shift depending on the outcome of its presidential election in November.

Meanwhile, the British Labour government has taken steps to reset relations with Iran, reopening dialogues previously closed under the Conservatives. The UK, with its historical ties to the region, is well-positioned to act as a mediator, particularly for the U.S. However, British diplomacy must recognize that supporting a gradual, homegrown transition toward a more progressive Iran is a far better strategy than fomenting violent upheaval.

Understanding the nuances of Iran’s power structure and societal fabric is vital if the West is to engage effectively with the country. A more forward-thinking Iran, one that embraces progressive voices, stands to benefit not just its people but also regional stability.