In the fraught theatre of international relations, the ‘rogue state’ label often serves as a prelude to sanctions, diplomatic isolation and, in extreme cases, overt calls for regime change. Nowhere is this dynamic more apparent than in the discourse surrounding Iran. Despite persistent tensions, the prospect of forcibly overthrowing Tehran’s government represents not only a perilous endeavour but a profound strategic miscalculation.

The Iranian state has evolved over four decades into a resilient entity, armoured by profound political, ideological, and structural defences alongside military hardware. To imagine its easy dismantlement ignores complex realities that make such an outcome unlikely and catastrophically destabilising. Several interconnected reasons argue decisively against pursuing forced overthrow.

Decade after Paris: World still off track on climate action

The most immediate obstacle to forced change is the conspicuous absence of a viable alternative. Such a move requires unified leadership and a coherent political vision – prerequisites clearly absent in contemporary Iran. The opposition, both domestically and within the diaspora, is fragmented. While figures like Reza Pahlavi hold symbolic weight for a segment of the population, a lifetime in exile has inevitably severed their grassroots connections and understanding of on-the-ground realities in Iran. Furthermore, there is no government-in-waiting capable of stepping into the void. Therefore, any sudden change might not bring ‘liberation’ but Libya-style state fragmentation or a bloody civil war, turning the country into a regional battleground.

© The Nation