Regime Change in Iran Will Push Russia and China Together

As of the penning of this article on June 26, 2025, Israel and Iran are both abiding by the ceasefire which went into place on June 23rd. While we should all be delighted to hear this news, it is important to take it with a grain of salt. Israel is undoubtedly on a mission to change the current Iranian regime. Beyond the question and concern of direct U.S. involvement, such a move would cause significant downstream consequences that directly impact the United States. It is this these consequences that this article will lay out in bare. But first, it is important that to give this piece the proper historical context.

The history U.S. military intervention on Israels behalf cloaked as a grave U.S. national security threat is known to any amateur historian.

In 1996, a group of U.S. neoconservatives under the banner of the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies (IASPS) drafted the so-called “Clean Break” memo. This report, which was written for then (and current) prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, called for regime change in Iraq and engaging Hezballah, Syria, and Iran. Seven years after the drafting of this report, on March 20, 2003, the United States invaded Iraq, under the pretense of their development of “Weapons of Mass Destruction” (of which there were none) and within one month, on April 9th 2023, Baghdad fell, marking the end of Saddam Husseins regime.

20 years later, Iran now represents Israels largest regional security threat. Iran has been steadily building a large proxy network surrounding Israel. This network includes Hamas, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and various militia groups. Whether or not Iran already posesses a nuclear weapon is unknown, but it is undeniable that their civilian nuclear capabilities could be co-opted, within a matter of months, to refining weapons grade uranium and subsequently deveoping a nuclear weapon. This would undermine Israels middle-eastern nuclear monopoly. It is for these reasons, and others, and in keeping with Netanyahu’s clean break strategy, that the current Iranian regime is unsuitable for Israels geostrategic agenda and history suggests that they will continue to see that agenda through.

Whether or not the war is paused for now, and whether or not the U.S. engages Iran again on behalf of Israel is beyond the scope of this article. However, it would be naive to suggest that Israels ultimate goal is not complete and total regime change. It would also be naive to assume that the United States would play no military role, be it direct or indirect, in a post regime change Iranian state. The date of such a pivotal moment is anyone’s guess, but some of its downstream consequences can be easily foreseen. These consequences would be antithetical to any serious America First agenda. Let us now lay out some of these consequences below.

To begin, there is no guarantee that if the current Iranian regime is overthrown that a new stable government will take its place. It could turn into a land run by Islamic insurgents and become a breeding ground for ISIS militants. In any case, an overthrow of the current Iranian regime, no matter what form it takes afterwards, would almost certainly mean U.S. involvement in the area. This would mean the installation of military bases and the further encirclement of Russia and China. Why is this a concern? First and foremost, we simply do not have the treasure to finance this. Every unnecessary foreign entanglement financed by inflation hastens the inevitable sovereign debt crisis and subsequent dollar collapse that awaits the United States. However, this is hardly our chief concern as that day is written in the bones.

The larger geopolitical concern can be surmised in one sentence. A U.S. backed proxy state in Iran or U.S. military presence in Iran will strengthen the mutual bond between China and Russia. This must be considered with the utmost seriousness.

We no longer live in a uni-polar world dominated solely by the United States. In this new multi-polar world, dominated by the United States, Russia, and China, America must adopt highly strategic balance of power politics, that is, a strategy of preventing any one nation or alliance from becoming too dominant, often by forming shifting alliances or backing weaker powers to maintain stability.

The UK played balance of power politics in Europe by consistently working to prevent any single country from dominating the continent. It allied with weaker coalitions to counter stronger rivals, such as joining Austria, Prussia, and Russia against Napoleon in the early 1800s, and later siding with France and Russia to contain Germany before World War I. Rather than seeking territorial expansion in Europe, Britain used diplomacy, military aid, and naval power to maintain a fragmented balance—intervening only when the equilibrium was threatened, as in both world wars. This strategy kept continental powers focused on each other, allowing Britain to preserve its independence and expand its global empire.

As it pertains to the United States in the 21st century, a strategic balance of power strategy would mean doing everything possible to prevent China and Russia from coupling. China has the worlds largest industrial base, Russia, the worlds largest resource base, both rank 1 and 3 on the worlds nuclear stockpile ranking, with the U.S. claiming 2nd place.

The further encirclement of Russia and China by way of Iran would not only strengthen the common concern and therefore inevitable bond between the two nations, but it would diminish any chances of diplomacy between those nations and the United States. What does this mean?

On the Russian front, this would likely mean the inability to negotiate an end to the Ukraine war, at least not an end that is amenable to the United States and European interests. In the event that Russias South western flank is cut off by U.S. military installations in Iran, Russia will have every incentive to push its influence as deep into Europe as possible. This may mean a renewed drive on behalf of the Russian government and people, to secure all of Ukraine. A peace settlement brokered by the United States and Europe may be seen as less desirable than continued war, eventual capture of Ukraine, and a Russia that directly borders Poland, Hungary and Romania, putting direct pressure on Europe and by default the United States.

Now let us consider China. China buys 90% of Iranians oil exports, however, this amounts to only roughly 15% of Chinas total oil imports. China may choose to forgo buying crude from a U.S. or Israeli proxy state and instead seek to purchase it directly from Russia, further linking the two countries.

Both nations are key players in BRICS, an alliance of major emerging economies, with an implicit goal of dethroning the U.S. dollar as the worlds reserve currency.

Given all of these risks, what exactly does the United States have to gain? The only answer is energy leverage. Iran has the world’s fourth-largest proven oil reserves and second-largest natural gas reserves. A friendly regime could mean access to cheap oil, energy contracts for U.S. companies, and the ability to undercut Russia and weaken OPEC's leverage. Beyond this, there are no clear benefits to the United States.

Beyond this, the idea that denuclearizing Iran is a vital national security interest is a farce. The United States has the worlds 2nd largest nuclear stockpile and could wipe Iran off the face of the earth in one day. Nuclear weapons serve Iran as a deterrent from outside influence, not as a weapon that they will use to destroy the United States in a mushroom cloud. North Korea has nuclear weapons and also chants “Death To America.”, why have they not yet nuked us?

These are just some of the concerns that must be considered by all Americans, especially those who are politically inclined and want to participate in the current discourse in an educated manner.