"Any regime that comes to power in Iran will be better."

Israeli authorities claim that "any regime that comes to power in Iran will be better than the current one." This has been the root cause of the war, into which Israel has drawn the United States. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio acknowledged on Monday that Israel would have attacked Iran regardless, and that this determined Washington's involvement. According to Rubio, the Americans knew that Israel would attack the Persian country and that this would provoke a response from Tehran not only against Israel, but also against US bases in the region. This motivated Washington's participation, not the threat of the Iranian nuclear program. The United States has been arming Israel for many years. Therefore, Washington could have prevented the war by stopping Tel Aviv from using its weapons in the conflict. In the end, the Americans agreed to jump on the Benjamin Netanyahu bandwagon and participate in the attacks. There is no doubt that President Donald Trump, for whatever reason, is fully aligned with Netanyahu.

The problem is that there are no guarantees that any regime that comes to power will be better than the current one. It will be better for Israel, but it's not clear that it will have the necessary capacity to stabilize Iran. Among other things, a civil war in the short or medium term shouldn't be ruled out, which would further draw Israel and the United States into intervention in Iran.

It's very likely that the war won't end until Israel's objectives are met. Several Israeli officials have said so. That is, until a regime change is consolidated. Once involved, the United States won't be able to withdraw until Tel Aviv is sufficiently satisfied.

The Shah's son

Israel's preferred option is a regime led by the Shah's son, who lives in the United States. He is a man without great charisma but well-connected to the Israeli authorities. He has even visited Israel and would obey instructions from Tel Aviv without question.

The Shah's son has significant support from a segment of his country, especially from exiles, but not everyone shares the desire to see him in Tehran ruling like his father, an administration that was remotely controlled from the United States and Israel.

The new regime, like the Shah's regime before the 1979 revolution, will have to exercise considerable repression against a large part of the population, because the country is deeply divided between Westerners and conservatives, and it does not seem likely that the entire population will agree to a new regime dictated from the West.

A humiliation of the Shia religion, like the one carried out by the Shah's father, will not be well received by a considerable portion of Iranians, who will not easily submit to the new regime. Such a scenario would provoke more resistance and greater repression.

Another mistake is that Israel is fomenting rebellion among the ethnic and religious minorities, which are considerable in Iran. This creates additional tensions that will undoubtedly contribute to making the country more ungovernable. The United States assures that it will not repeat the same mistakes it made in Iraq, but the dynamics have a life of their own and may go in another direction. A direction desired by Israel, but not by the United States.