Netanyahu vows to eliminate Iran regime, sources tell 'Post' Trump 'very close' to renewing strikes

Netanyahu presented Iran’s government as the central source of the regional threat. He said Israel is committed to completing the elimination of Iran’s regime, which he called the head of a “venomous octopus.” His comments linked Iran’s government directly to Hezbollah and other regional conflict.

Speaking at the new Kiryat Shmona-Tel Hai University, Netanyahu said Israel had destroyed major terrorist infrastructure in northern Israel. He added that Israel still needed to complete the task by toppling Iran’s “terrorist regime.” He compared this to severing an octopus’s head so the rest would fall.

Netanyahu said Hezbollah’s elimination and peace with Lebanon would come in parallel with the fall of Iran’s Islamic regime. He also argued that Iran would continue its nuclear ambitions and efforts to rebuild its proxy network as long as its current government survived. These were his stated goals, not confirmed outcomes.

In practical political terms, toppling a regime means ending the current government’s control and replacing its leadership or governing system. “Eliminating” can mean the same thing in this context, but it is not a precise legal or military term. The article uses both expressions without describing an operational plan.

Possible methods could include sanctions, diplomatic isolation, covert assistance, support for opposition groups, or direct military action against state institutions. A campaign aimed at regime change would differ from limited strikes on nuclear or military facilities. It could also create a struggle over who governs afterward.

Netanyahu said Iran’s regime must be toppled because he believes it will continue nuclear ambitions and efforts to rebuild its proxy network. The article reports that Trump discussed eliminating Iran’s regime with Netanyahu. It does not confirm that the United States or Israel had approved a regime-change operation.

The reported scale is at least one recent occasion. Several sources familiar with the details told The Jerusalem Post that the Trump administration came “very close” to approving a strike on Iran. That wording confirms one or more near-decisions, but it does not establish a precise total.

The report connects the revelation to Trump’s remark in Atlanta: “wait till you see what we do to Iran.” It also says Trump had stated that the United States would not bomb Iran again before November 3. Iranian officials nevertheless told Reuters that Tehran expected bombing to resume sooner or later.

The key point is uncertainty. The administration apparently considered military action seriously, but the article does not say that approval was granted or identify every occasion. It also does not specify what target, weapons, or trigger were involved. Therefore, the safest answer is “at least one,” rather than a larger unverified number.

Iran’s nuclear program includes uranium enrichment, nuclear research, fuel production, and related facilities. Civilian nuclear work can produce electricity and medical materials, but enrichment and other capabilities can also shorten the path toward a nuclear weapon. The article refers to Iran’s nuclear ambitions without detailing the program’s facilities or technical status.

The “terror proxy axis” means armed groups that receive Iranian funding, weapons, training, advice, or political support and operate in Iran’s wider regional network. Commonly identified members include Hezbollah in Lebanon, Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Yemen’s Houthis, and several Iran-aligned Iraqi militias. These examples come from established outside knowledge, not the article.

The article specifically names Hezbollah and describes Iran’s proxy axis as something the regime may rebuild. Netanyahu argues that Iran’s nuclear ambitions and support for armed partners are connected. He says the regime must be removed because both efforts would continue as long as it remains in power.

The connection is strategic. A government that supports armed groups can use them to pressure neighboring countries without relying only on its regular army. A nuclear capability could increase that government’s deterrence and bargaining power. Together, these tools may make attacks, coercion, and regional escalation harder to contain.

The article gives Netanyahu’s reasoning directly. He says Iran’s regime will continue its nuclear ambitions and attempt to rebuild its terror proxy axis “as long as it lives.” He describes Iran as the head of a “venomous octopus,” while identifying Hezbollah as a connected threat. The article also reports discussion between Netanyahu and Trump about eliminating the regime.

This framing treats the government, nuclear program, and armed partners as one linked problem rather than separate issues. It helps explain why Netanyahu advocates regime change instead of only limited strikes. However, the article does not provide a separate US policy statement proving that Washington formally adopts every part of Netanyahu’s analysis.

If the United States resumes bombing, Iran could retaliate against Israel, US forces, or regional partners. Israel could face missile or drone attacks, while Lebanon could suffer if Hezbollah joins the conflict. Civilian deaths, displacement, infrastructure damage, and disruption to trade or energy supplies are common risks of a wider war.

An Israeli or US attempt at regime change would carry additional dangers. Iran’s state institutions could fragment, armed groups could expand their activity, and competing factions could fight for power. Hezbollah might escalate rather than disappear. The article presents Netanyahu’s opposite expectation: that removing Iran’s regime would help eliminate Hezbollah and bring peace with Lebanon.

The immediate reality is unresolved. Sources reported that Washington came close to approving a strike, while Trump said bombing would not resume before November 3. Iranian officials still expected attacks eventually. The region therefore faced continued uncertainty, with either restraint or renewed action capable of changing the conflict’s scale.

The UN Charter’s basic rule is that states must not use force against another state’s territorial integrity or political independence. The main exceptions are force authorized by the UN Security Council and necessary, proportionate self-defense after an armed attack. Consent from the other government can also provide a legal basis. These rules protect national sovereignty.

A strike must therefore have a lawful justification, a necessary objective, and proportionate methods. Self-defense requires an actual or sufficiently imminent threat under the applicable legal interpretation. Regime change is especially problematic because overthrowing another government directly attacks its political independence. Supporting armed groups to remove it can also violate non-intervention rules.

The article reports political statements and possible military planning, not a legal justification. Netanyahu’s goal of toppling Iran’s regime, or Trump’s possible strike decision, would not by itself establish legality. The precise legal assessment would depend on authorization, evidence of an armed attack or imminent threat, necessity, proportionality, and the operation’s actual conduct.