Brig. Gen. Amir Avivi Talks to TML About Iran’s Big Blunder
IDSF Chairman Amir Avivi: Bringing down the regime will enable the dismantling of nuclear capabilities
Israel is once again at war with Iran. But what is different about this operation compared to the one last summer? Despite 12 days of fighting against Iran last June, the war did not end everything. Nuclear facilities were destroyed, and missile capabilities were diminished, yet in recent days, Iran has dealt significant blows to Israel. One attack in Beit Shemesh left nine dead, and many were wounded in a severe strike in Beersheba. Will the missile attacks continue? How is this going to end?
I spoke earlier with Brig. Gen. Amir Avivi, chairman and founder of the Israel Defense and Security Forum (IDSF), about the possibility of the US going to war with Iran, and we met again as that potential became a reality. Asked how this operation differed from the one last summer, Avivi said that during the previous war Israel had a “very narrow and clear” mission, since Iran was approaching a “decisive threshold.”
“The Iranians were about to produce a nuclear weapon, weaponize a bomb, and it was a matter of maybe of weeks that they reached this point,” he said.
The Iranians were about to produce a nuclear weapon, weaponize a bomb, and it was a matter of maybe of weeks that they reached this point.
Israel’s objective in that operation focused almost entirely on Iran’s nuclear program. “The main mission in the previous operation was to really dismantle their nuclear capabilities, kill all the scientists that were dealing with this, and really distance Iran meaningfully from having nuclear capabilities,” he said. At the same time, Israel targeted Iran’s ballistic missile infrastructure and managed to destroy 200 out of 300 launchers, setting them back significantly in only 12 days.
“Israel did it mostly alone,” Avivi explained, noting that the United States joined later in a limited role to bomb the nuclear sites. “This bought us time and really set back Iran from its nuclear plans.”
Iran bounced back. “What we have seen is that Iran managed to recuperate fast,” he said, particularly in ballistic missile production. Rather than moderating its behavior, Tehran escalated: “they became even more aggressive,” funding Hezbollah to the tune of $700 million last year and ramping up production of ballistic missiles.
For Avivi, that recovery reshaped Israel’s assessment of what would be required to end the threat rather than merely delay it. “It was clear that the only solution is that this regime needs to go. We need a change of regime,” he said.
He pointed to the regime’s crackdown on protesters in January—described by Avivi as having left “many thousands” dead—as a turning point for how Israel views the conflict’s end state. In his words, “we are now in a completely different scenario with a clear goal to destroy this regime.”
One missing component in the idea that the Iranian people will take over the government is the means to do so. I asked Avivi whether defectors from the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) would supply Iranian civilians with weapons.
Avivi said the current military campaign is aimed at systematically dismantling Iran’s governing structure, with Israel and the United States targeting different components of the regime simultaneously. “Basically, the US and Israel are completely dismantling this regime.”
Israeli forces are carrying out widespread strikes inside Iran against state and security institutions, including the IRGC, its Basij volunteer militia, and centers of government. At the same time, the United States is focused on degrading Iran’s strategic military capabilities, including its navy, ballistic missile capabilities, nuclear sites, and air defenses.
In a few days, this regime’s capabilities will be completely destroyed. So are the forces that were shooting all the civilians.
“In a few days, this regime’s capabilities will be completely destroyed,” he said. “So are the forces that were shooting all the civilians.”
The joint campaign, Avivi argued, is intended to create conditions inside Iran that would allow the population to rise and take over their country from the regime. “Outside powers can only go so far. At the end of the day, it’s up to the Iranian people,” he said.
Airpower has limits, even at its current intensity. “There’s so much you can do from the air, and we are really doing a lot,” he said, describing efforts to remove senior leadership and dismantle the regime’s ability to function, including strikes aimed at “toppling the leadership, destroying the command and control, destroying their military sites, ballistic missiles, launchers, and so on,” as well as continued attacks on “the Basij, the Revolutionary Guards.”
“There will be a moment when both the US and Israel will feel that the people can rise, and they will be safe, relatively safe,” he said. “This will be the moment to take over the country.”
As the campaign widens beyond Iran itself, Israeli planners are also weighing what escalation means for the proxy fronts that Tehran has built across the region.
Israel has called up 100,000 reservists to finish what was not completed in the previous war. I asked Avivi what to expect from the renewed effort against Hezbollah.
“The IDF has prepared decisive plans against Hezbollah for a long time, and they wanted to execute it,” he said, but Israel’s government instructed the military to hold back and focus instead on Iran.
That changed after Hezbollah launched attacks against Israel. “Hezbollah did a huge mistake by shooting Israel,” he said, arguing that the move strengthened Israel’s position internationally and reinforced its legitimacy to act.
In Lebanon, Israel has moved forward with plans developed over the past year, and the campaign will continue until its objectives are met. “The attack on Hezbollah is not going to stop until we really dismantle this organization,” he said.
Avivi drew a parallel between Israel’s approach in Lebanon and its strategy in Iran, saying both theaters rely on shaping internal conditions rather than imposing outcomes outright. “In both places, we can set the conditions to reach the goal.”
Give the gift of hope
We practice what we preach:
accurate, fearless journalism. But we can't do it alone.
- On the ground in Gaza, Syria, Israel, Egypt, Pakistan, and more
- Our program trained more than 100 journalists
- Calling out fake news and reporting real facts
- On the ground in Gaza, Syria, Israel, Egypt, Pakistan, and more
- Our program trained more than 100 journalists
- Calling out fake news and reporting real facts
Join us.
Support The Media Line. Save democracy.
“In Iran,” the aim is “to set the condition for the people to rise,” Avivi said. In Lebanon, the focus is “to set the condition for the Lebanese government to take over and create a sovereign state without the militia.”
Israel intends to severely weaken Hezbollah’s military capabilities. “Israel is really able to hit them really, really hard.”
He described the current phase as an expansion of the conflict on multiple fronts and argued that Israel enters it with a significant strategic edge. “Israel is arriving to this war much, much, much stronger than two years ago, and they are much weaker,” he said.
We find ourselves also fighting hand-in-hand with the US Army. This is a huge game-changer.
That advantage is amplified by US involvement. “We find ourselves also fighting hand-in-hand with the US Army,” he said. “This is a huge game-changer” because it is “changing everything on the ground and accelerating the victory which we have ahead.”
Beyond the battlefield, Avivi said, the war is also being fought through chokepoints and markets that can pressure governments far from the front lines.
The Strait of Hormuz remains a critical global flashpoint because of its central role in oil transport. Uncertainty persists over how events there may unfold and whether any escalation can be effectively contained.
Iran is deliberately leveraging energy markets as part of its broader strategy, Avivi said, pointing to a sharp rise in oil prices. Prices climbed by about 10% in 24 hours, reaching roughly $80. “This is Iranian strategy,” he said, arguing that Tehran understands “what’s important for the American people is cost of living and the prices of oil.”
Iran’s first move was an attempt to disrupt maritime traffic through the Strait of Hormuz. “The response was obvious, and they did a huge mistake,” he said. “The US immediately destroyed their navy.”
After that effort failed, he said, Iran shifted tactics by targeting regional energy infrastructure and, in effect, reasoning: “Now we are going to shoot Saudi fields and the Emirati and Kuwaiti.” He described Iran’s attacks on neighboring states as an effort “to really affect the prices of oil.”
The appropriate countermeasure, Avivi argued, is increased production. “I think the response needs to be, first and foremost, to produce more oil,” he said. The United States should immediately expand oil and gas output, and Venezuela should do the same to stabilize markets and reduce prices.
Despite current volatility, Avivi said he believes the situation is temporary. “We have to understand that this reality is a short-term reality. In a few weeks, the prices will go back down after this regime will be dismantled.”
As an indicator of confidence, he pointed to Israel’s financial markets. “The Israeli stock market had today the best day since the corona [pandemic]. While we are fighting, there is a rally in the Israeli market.” That performance, he said, is “a good signal that what we are doing is the right thing.”
Avivi said the ultimate objective is regime change and that achieving it would usher in “a completely new reality in the Middle East,” marked by prosperity, stability, and additional peace agreements.
The war does not just involve Iran, the US, and Israel. Gulf countries are increasingly taking an active role. In describing that broader regional involvement, Avivi pointed to reports and claims circulating during the fighting, including that on Monday Qatar took down two Iranian warplanes and that three US planes were shot down in a Kuwait “friendly fire” incident. I asked Avivi whether he was surprised by the way Gulf countries are involved in the war.
“I think the Iranians expected that when they shoot all these countries, they will put pressure on the US to stop the war,” he said. The strategy backfired, he argued. Tehran’s actions have widened opposition to the regime rather than isolating the United States. “Iranian aggression is bringing more and more countries into a coalition against Iran,” he said.
Iranian aggression is bringing more and more countries into a coalition against Iran
He said governments across the region are drawing conclusions from the scale and speed of the American response, as well as its “willingness to fight and win decisively.” States are reassessing the regional balance and positioning themselves accordingly.
“They see where this is going,” he said. “They understand that the balance of power has shifted and the US is back, powerful, and really impacting the Middle East.”
“You know how it is. Everybody wants to be on the side of the winners. They understand that the US and Israel are going to win decisively,” Avivi said.
He did not identify specific countries joining such a coalition but described the shift as growing and cumulative, fueled by what he characterized as Iranian overreach and the demonstrated military coordination between Washington and Jerusalem.
Still, he suggested one obstacle could be Iraq, where Shi’ite and Sunni armed groups operate in the same country, raising concern that the Shi’ite side is beholden to the Iranians.
Avivi argued there is a pressing need to dismantle the Shia axis across the region, including the Houthis, the Shia armed groups in Iraq, Hezbollah, and Hamas. At the same time, he said the central strategy should be to focus on Iran first. “The way to do it is first and foremost to topple the head of the snake, to bring down the Iranian regime,” he said, adding that Iran is the source of funding, coordination, and military capabilities for its proxies.
“It’s obvious that without the support of Iran, without the funding, without the technology, without the guidance, this will weaken dramatically all the proxies,” he said.
He also acknowledged the possibility of escalation on additional fronts. “We might see the Houthis also joining the fight and maybe the militias in Iraq,” Avivi said, adding that Israel and the United States are prepared for that scenario.
We understand that this is a multifront war and we’re prepared for that with the US, and we’ll act accordingly
“We understand that this is a multifront war and we’re prepared for that with the US, and we’ll act accordingly,” he said.
Asked about Iran-linked sleeper cells in other countries and ways Iran may retaliate beyond the regional battlefield, Avivi said, “There’s high alerts everywhere in Europe, South America, and other places where you have the danger of terror attacks or bad players.”
Despite those risks, he argued that strategic focus should remain fixed on developments inside Iran itself. “I think really the key should focus on what’s happening in Iran and bring down the regime,” he said, adding that the outcome will shape broader regional and global stability.
He described Iran’s leadership as the central driver of instability across multiple theaters. “This will really bring down this evil regime that is undermining the whole Middle East and many other places in the globe.”
With Avivi framing regime change as the hinge point, the question of who could unify Iran after the fighting becomes central to what comes next.
The name Reza Pahlavi, the exiled crown prince of Iran, has come up in many quarters in connection with who will lead the country after the fall of the regime. The opposition organization Mojahedin-e-Khalq has also been mentioned.
“I met Reza Pahlavi in Washington. We both spoke at the same event and spent an evening with him. Very impressive guy,” Avivi said.
A longstanding weakness within Iran’s opposition has been the absence of a unifying figure. Avivi said that dynamic is now changing. “But now the Iranian people have rallied behind Reza Pahlavi,” he said. “They are listening to him.”
Many Iranians believe Pahlavi’s goal is to oversee a transitional phase rather than restore the monarchy and move Iran toward democracy. “They understand that he doesn’t intend to create a kingdom again. It’s not like his father,” he said.
He said that perception has fostered growing trust among segments of the population. “They are trusting him that he will do the right thing for Iran,” he said. “They are raising the flag of the Shah. They want him to take over.”
“This is good news because once the people have a leader, it’s much easier to do this change of regime,” Avivi added.
Taking out Iran’s nuclear capability is a main objective of the war. Yet the facilities are buried deep in mountainous areas and are difficult to access. How is this goal going to be achieved?
The key, once again, Avivi argued, is a change of power in Tehran. He responded: “The moment you have a regime that is an ally of the US and Israel, they themselves will dismantle all this” and allow others to monitor the process.”
Avivi insisted that not all problems would be solved or the dangers eliminated at once. “We have to focus on bringing down the government” through Israeli and US shared intelligence and combined airpower.
“I think that 90% can be destroyed. But then when there will be a change of regime, then really it’s a whole different scenario.” He added, “I know it’s hard to imagine, but I would assume that we’ll have peace with Iran before we have peace with Saudi Arabia.”
I know it’s hard to imagine, but I would assume that we’ll have peace with Iran before we have peace with Saudi Arabia
Asked how long he thinks the war will last, Avivi replied, “Probably a few weeks. It might be shorter, depends on the results.” He concluded, “One big question which will define a lot of what will happen is the Iranian people: When are they going to rise and in what way? This will define how things will end.”
For Avivi, the endgame is defined less by the number of strikes and more by whether Iranians decide they can move without fear—and whether the region absorbs the consequences of that choice.
