In the context of recent events, Iranian expert I.Koreivaitė raises two pivotal questions regarding the feasibility of US and Israeli military strikes aimed at overthrowing the current Iranian regime. She questions whether such strikes could lead to the regime's collapse and whether a unifying political alternative that aligns with US and Israeli interests could emerge in Iran. Despite claims that Iran's Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was killed in strikes, the expert argues that the physical removal of the leader does not necessarily entail the collapse of the political system. Iran's governance structure resembles a hybrid theocracy-military model rather than a singular dictatorship.

I.Koreivaitė elaborates that even if the Supreme Leader were to die, there is a procedural system in place that allows for continuity within the Iranian political system. The Assembly of Experts is responsible for appointing a new Supreme Leader, while the Revolutionary Guards guarantee transitional stability. Moreover, the religious and economic elites within Iran share a vested interest in maintaining the existing system, further complicating any foreign attempts to destabilize it through military means. The expert notes that the regime's security architecture is resilient and can withstand external military pressures.

Consequently, I.Koreivaitė's analysis suggests that merely targeting and eliminating Iran's top leadership does not equate to dismantling the entrenched structures of power that sustain the regime. The Iranian government's layered and complex political landscape poses significant challenges for any military intervention aimed at instigating a regime change, indicating that both domestic and international actors seeking to reform or replace the regime must consider these realities.