Why Regime-Change in Iran will not happen

Israel and the US have both asserted strongly that Iran cannot be permitted to have a nuclear weapons development program, the destruction of which was the key objective of Israel’s and America’s strikes against Iran this summer, with regime change cited as a desired beneficial outcome rather than a direct strategic aim of the attacks.

However, it is important not to lose sight of the fact that Iran remains a key "strategic partner" (a semantic formulation designed to distance the relationship from being framed as a formal alliance) of both Russia and China, the latter of which has an oil-supply arrangement with the country that sees some 90% of Iran's crude oil exported to China, while Russia sees Iran as friendly territory occupying the space adjoining its southern underbelly as the run-up to global war gathers pace.

Accordingly, neither backer of Iran is simply going to sit back and meekly permit the installation in Tehran of a pro-American, pro-Israeli puppet regime; rather, being existential to both countries’ current geopolitical momentum, were such a change of government to appear imminent, it would be seen as a matter justifying direct intervention, to which end we might reasonably expect Russian and/or Chinese forces to enter Iran to secure their de facto ally (i.e. protect their own interests) from Israeli-American overthrow.

That, of course, would be a minimal response from the two heavyweights of the East.

But Russian Security Council Deputy Chairman Dmitry Medvedev has suggested a more emphatic course of action.

"A number of countries are ready to directly supply Iran with their own nuclear warheads." ~ Medvedev stated on X on 22nd June 2025.

The inference to that is plainly that Russia itself would be willing to do so under certain conditions, that is, if it were perceived that Iran’s status as critical strategic Russian ally was at risk of dissolution.

Naturally one might wonder about the particulars of how Iran might be furnished with nuclear weaponry by Russia, but before addressing that, a broader framework must be considered, starting with enunciating some additional foundational context.

Iran makes no Plays without the Green Light from Moscow

Some observers have been baffled at Hezbollah's inaction, assigning to the terrorist organisation a sense of defeatism in the midst of the organisation.

But fanatics do not become demoralised or defeatist!

Rather, it seems prudent to interpret Hezbollah's forbearance purely as restraint applied not just from Iran, but from Moscow standing behind Iran.

That is because, according to defector testimony recounted by the anticommunist author J.R. Nyquist, Russia calls the shots as far as Iran and its proxies go in making any geopolitical moves in the Middle East (casting aspersions on the partner-only status of their relationship), and at the present time Russia’s interest is not the overwhelming of Israel’s defences and the reduction to rubble of its towns and cities, but rather, the establishment of a peace treaty that will progressively contribute to the diminution of western influence and military activity in the Middle East before the coming global war begins.

Yes, you read that right.

Russia wants to broker a peace treaty and knows it can do so from the position of being the only country on earth capable of corralling all of the Islamic powers, Sunni and Shiah, behind a deal.

"Putin also emphasized Russia's readiness to carry out possible mediation efforts and noted that Russia had proposed steps aimed at finding mutually acceptable agreements during U.S.-Iran negotiations on the Iranian nuclear program." ~ Trump and Putin hold call, discuss Iran-Israel tensions, Ukraine war on 14th June 2025.

What a Russian-brokered Peace Treaty might look like

A peace treaty brokered by Russia might entail Russia guaranteeing Israel’s security, perhaps nominally for the sake of the 17% (or so) of Israel's population of Russian extraction, but perhaps more explicitly in exchange for a stake in further development of Israel’s hydrocarbon fields off its Mediterranean coast.

Under such an arrangement, Russia might assure Israel that it would regulate or curtail Iran’s indigenous nuclear ambitions to ensure that Israel could never be attacked by Iran; this would perhaps become a much more plausible proposal were Iran to be persuaded through Russian diplomacy to give up its nuclear weapons program in exchange for hosting Russian-regulated nukes for “purely defensive purposes”, modelled on the nuclear-sharing that the US exercises in Europe where Germany, Holland, Belgium and Italy host American-supplied and -guarded nuclear bombs and have the platforms (Panavia Tornadoes and F-16 Fighting Falcons) to deliver them under US direction.

That way Iran would, after a fashion and to some degree of comfort, get to have nuclear weapons but Russia would be able to plausibly assure Israel that those warheads would never be used aggressively against it.

Underpinning that, Russia would also likely insist that Iran formally withdraw its threats to wipe Israel from the map and instead agree to accept Israel as a regional hydrocarbon partner.

All of this would, obviously, prove a masterclass in statesmanship that would blindside the Americans and substantially sideline them as Israel’s “big protector”, that role instead suddenly and slickly passing to Russia.

Implications of a Middle East Peace Treaty for World War Three

Russia has been seeking and acquiring basing rights in the eastern Mediterranean and in the Red Sea region for over a decade.

If it secures peace in the Middle East in the fashion described above, and especially if it becomes a stakeholder in Israel’s hydrocarbon production, it gains a reasonable justification for enjoying additional basing rights in Israel itself.

If that happens, the West loses a critical strategic foothold in the Levant during the current run-up to World War Three and if, additionally, BRICS-flirting Turkey completes its slow-boil pivot to Moscow, NATO would lose its second largest army and its primary defensive blocking force on the doorstep of south east Europe.

Then, on top of that, if America were to become stretched by a Chinese breakout in the Pacific (for example), and the European armies were to be diverted by more extensive Russian manoeuvres on NATO’s eastern flank, the Middle East in general and Israel in particular would become even more exposed to Russia’s will.

At that point, Russia could be expected to make good on whatever promises it secretly made to its Islamic allies concerning the peace deal with Israel.

In plainest terms, Israel would be on the menu, and the West would be too distracted or stretched to intervene militarily.

Should events fall out that way over the next, say, 3-4 years, and if you have a safe place to bunker down in, you will know “it’s time”.