Iran War: The Failed Bet on a Popular Uprising – Trump, Israel & the Mossad’s Plan

The conflict in Iran, now entering its third week, was predicated on a strategic gamble – the belief that military strikes could ignite a popular uprising and topple the current regime. That expectation, fueled by assessments from Israeli intelligence, has so far failed to materialize, leaving the United States and Israel with diverging aims and a protracted conflict, according to reports from the Latest York Times and other sources.

The Plan for an Uprising

Prior to the joint US-Israeli military intervention, David Barnea, the head of Israel’s Mossad intelligence agency, presented a plan to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu outlining a strategy to destabilize the Iranian government. The assessment, detailed in a report published Sunday, suggested that the Mossad could “galvanize the Iranian opposition,” sparking widespread unrest through intelligence operations and potentially leading to the collapse of the Islamic Republic. Barnea reportedly shared this assessment with officials within the Trump administration during a visit to Washington in mid-January.

Netanyahu embraced the plan, and President Trump appeared to endorse it publicly, directly appealing to the Iranian people in his initial address following the strikes. “Grab control of your government: you only have to do it,” Trump stated, seemingly anticipating an immediate popular revolt. However, those hopes have been dashed as the Iranian government has dug in, resisting calls for change.

Diverging Views and Skepticism

Even as Netanyahu initially believed in the potential for a swift regime change, both US and Israeli officials now express skepticism about the likelihood of an uprising. The New York Times report highlights a growing divergence in approaches between the two allies. The United States views Iran through a broader lens of global strategic goals, while Israel maintains a more regionally focused perspective. This difference in outlook is now reflected in their assessment of the situation on the ground.

US military officials reportedly cautioned Trump that continued bombing campaigns would likely quell any potential for protests, while intelligence assessments deemed a popular uprising improbable. Nate Swanson, a former State Department and White House official, explained to the New York Times that many Iranians are hesitant to risk their lives in protest, fearing brutal repression. “Many protesters don’t go into the street because they risk getting shot… They’re going to acquire massacred,” Swanson said. “But the second thing is, there’s a good part of the population that just wants a better life, and is sidelined right now. They don’t like the regime, but they don’t wish to die opposing it. Those 60% are going to stay home.”

Failed Strategies and Unfulfilled Promises

One proposed avenue for bolstering the opposition involved Kurdish militias, with the CIA reportedly providing them with arms and intelligence. Israeli military officials even hinted at facilitating a Kurdish invasion of western Iran, stating that operations were aimed at “opening the way to Tehran.” However, this strategy also failed to gain traction. Bafel Talabani, president of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, cautioned that a Kurdish advance could be counterproductive, potentially uniting the Iranian population against such a move.

Turkey also voiced strong opposition to any involvement of Kurdish forces, communicating its concerns to the Trump administration through its Foreign Minister, Hakan Fidan. These obstacles, combined with the Iranian government’s swift and forceful response to any signs of dissent, have effectively stifled the prospect of a widespread uprising.

Anticipated Hardening of the Regime

Prior to the military intervention, the CIA anticipated that even without a complete collapse, the Iranian regime would likely harden its stance in response to external pressure. This prediction has proven accurate, with the government intensifying its crackdown on dissent and consolidating its power. The initial hope for a quick and decisive victory through regime change has given way to a more protracted and uncertain conflict.

Despite the setbacks, some Israeli officials remain optimistic. Yechiel Leiter, Israel’s ambassador to the United States, recently stated on CNN, “I think you need troops on the ground, but they need to be Iranian troops. And I think they’re arriving.” Whether this represents a genuine expectation of an imminent uprising or simply a continuation of wishful thinking remains to be seen.

The Current Situation and Regional Implications

As of March 24, 2026, the conflict continues to escalate, with Iran retaliating against its neighbors in the Persian Gulf. This has created a volatile situation, raising concerns about a wider regional war and significant economic disruption. The initial plan for a swift regime change has been replaced by a complex and unpredictable geopolitical landscape.

The failure to spark an uprising underscores the challenges of intervening in a country with a deeply entrenched political system and a population wary of external interference. It also highlights the importance of accurate intelligence and realistic assessments when formulating foreign policy strategies.

The situation remains fluid, and the future of the conflict is uncertain. The next key development will be the outcome of ongoing diplomatic efforts, as President Trump recently stated that talks with Iran have been “extremely good.” The international community will be closely watching to see if these talks can lead to a de-escalation of the conflict and a path towards a lasting resolution.

What’s Next: Further developments in the US-Iran talks are expected within the next 72 hours. Archysport will continue to provide updates as they become available.

Have your say: What do you think is the most likely outcome of the conflict in Iran? Share your thoughts in the comments below.