Netanyahu's Regime Change Goal: 'Liberation of 90 Million' or 'Illegal War of Aggression'?

Benjamin Netanyahu says destroying Iran's government will bring peace to the Middle East. A US intelligence report completed days before the bombs fell says it probably won't work. And depending on where you read about it, the Israeli prime minister is either a liberator or a war criminal.

The gap between these framings is one of the widest we've measured.

The Claim

Netanyahu's position is straightforward, at least on the surface. Speaking to the Israeli public this week, he said "95% of the problems in the Middle East are generated by Iran," and that toppling the regime would trigger "a flood of peace deals between Israel and its Arab and Muslim neighbors."

He addressed the Iranian people directly in Farsi, calling on them to "come to the streets, come out in your millions, to overthrow the regime of fear that has made your lives bitter." The framing: this war isn't against Iran's people. It's for them.

The Times of Israel reported this as a defining moment — a prime minister finally acting on three decades of warnings about Tehran's nuclear ambitions. After years of being called "chickenshit" by Obama-era officials for never pulling the trigger on a preemptive strike, Netanyahu had found his moment and his partner in Trump.

The Counter-Narrative

From the Middle East, the same speech sounds very different.

"Netanyahu has made regime change in Iran the central theme of his 18-year political career," wrote the Arab Center Washington DC. Their legal analysis was blunt: "The US-Israeli attacks on Iran cannot be legally justified under any theory of the laws of war."

The distinction matters. Under the UN Charter, force is only permitted in self-defense against an armed attack. Iran hadn't attacked Israel when the bombing campaign began on February 28. The shifting justifications — regime change, then protecting Iranian citizens, then nuclear weapons — mirror patterns that international law scholars have seen before, most recently in Iraq in 2003.

Al Jazeera spoke to former Israeli government adviser Daniel Levy, who offered a striking assessment from within the Israeli establishment itself: "Israel has no real interest in smooth regime change. I think most Israeli leaders regard that as a kind of fairytale, though that's not something Netanyahu and allies might be ready to admit publicly."

Ahron Bregman, a King's College London fellow stuck in Tel Aviv during the strikes, reported a different kind of gap — between Israeli public sentiment and reality. "I'm taken aback by the strong support among these — mainly liberal — Israelis of the war," he told Al Jazeera. "They, like their leaders, believe that if you only topple the Iranian regime, the Middle East will totally transform for the better, which is, of course, nonsense."

The Intelligence Gap

Then there's Washington's own assessment.

A National Intelligence Council report drafted in late February — before the first bombs fell — concluded that "even a large-scale military assault on the country would be unlikely to topple its theocratic government." The New York Times reported that intelligence officials remain skeptical that popular uprising could dislodge the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, which controls Iran's security apparatus and large parts of its economy.

The Pentagon itself has sent mixed signals. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said at a press conference that the operation was not a "so-called regime-change war." But both Trump and Netanyahu said regime change was the goal on the first day of bombing. The goalposts, as Reason magazine put it, "keep shifting."

The Guardian's Aluf Benn, a veteran Israeli analyst, went further: "The chaos of a failed state in Iran would be a perfectly acceptable outcome for Netanyahu." Not a functioning democracy. Not a smooth transition. Just the removal of a threat, whatever comes after.

How the World Splits

Here's where the perception gap gets its teeth.

In the US and Israel, the dominant framing centers on security: Iran was months away from a nuclear weapon, its proxy network had surrounded Israel with hundreds of thousands of missiles, and decades of diplomacy had failed. This framing treats regime change as defensive necessity.

In the Middle East, the framing centers on sovereignty: a country that hadn't attacked anyone was bombed by two foreign powers, its leader killed, and its population told to rise up on command. The 555 people killed in Iran — including 180 at a girls' school — rarely lead Western coverage. They lead every regional broadcast.

In Europe, the framing splits. The Guardian published both supportive analysis ("doing the free world a favor," per the NYT opinion section they cited) and sharp criticism of the operation's legality and likely outcomes. Le Monde tracked Netanyahu's "30-year obsession with Iran" as context for the current campaign.

The dimension where divergence is most extreme? Actor portrayal. To Israeli and American audiences, Netanyahu is a leader finally taking action against an existential threat. To much of the Middle East, he is presiding over an illegal war of aggression against a sovereign nation, having already expanded Israeli territory into Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, and the West Bank.

The PGI Score

This story scores 8.98 on the Albis Perception Gap Index — one of the highest scores we've recorded. The US-Middle East region pair alone hits 9.5, indicating that these two audiences are essentially watching different wars.

Dimensions breakdown:

• Factual Divergence (7.0): Same speech, different facts highlighted — nuclear program vs. school casualties
• Causal Attribution (9.0): Defensive necessity vs. illegal aggression
• Framing & Emphasis (9.0): Liberation narrative vs. sovereignty violation
• Emotional Valence (8.5): Hope and resolve vs. grief and outrage
• Actor Portrayal (9.5): Liberator vs. aggressor
• Cui Bono (9.5): Israeli/Western strategic interests vs. international law

The earlier AM Divided piece on the IRGC strike scored 8.68 — also in the "Competing Realities" range. Together, they paint a picture of a conflict where the basic facts are not in dispute, but the meaning of those facts is worlds apart.

What to Watch

The US intelligence assessment creates an awkward tension. If America's own analysts doubt that bombing will produce regime change, what happens when the dust settles and Iran's government is still standing?

Netanyahu spent decades warning about an Iranian bomb that never arrived. The question now is whether he's created a self-fulfilling prophecy — a military campaign built on a goal that his own allies' intelligence services say is unlikely to be achieved.

Wherever you're reading this from, you're probably seeing only half the story. That's the gap.

---

This story was scored by the Albis Perception Gap Index — measuring how differently the world frames the same events. See today's most divided stories →