Last edited Sun Mar 1, 2026, 05:19 AM - Edit history (1)
If this was actually about regime change, there are things the U.S. could do to support the Iranian people. Starting with, for example, the simple act of deploying direct-to-cell satellite services.
It seems to me the attacks have done little to dismantle military/economic power of the 200,000 or so that make up the Revolutionary Guard Corps or the Basij Militia, which can mobilize more than 500,000 people to suppress internal dissent.
And with a minimum of four layers of succession named for key government and military positions, I'm not sure how much credence we can give to the notion that the attack has somehow decapitated the Iranian regime.
A few tidbits from The Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/feb/28/strategic-options-iran-retaliate-us-israel-analysis
Last summer during the 12-day war with Israel, Khamenei had named three potential successors should he be killed. Reports earlier this month indicated that Khamenei had named four layers of succession for key government and military jobs, in an effort to ensure regime survival in the face of a US-Israeli attack.
....
The early indications are that the US and Israel plan a bombing campaign that could last weeks, while Iran runs down its estimated stock of 2,000 ballistic missiles. Its ability to retaliate at scale may only last a few days, while the US can run in excess of 125 bombing missions a day from each of its aircraft carriers alone.
Iran has few good strategic options now it is under sustained attack. The regime’s best prospect may be to try to endure the waves that are likely to come, continue to retaliate while it can, and try to retain control of the streets given that the US and Israel have so far expressed no intention of mounting a ground invasion.
If that is the case, it is not obvious how the war will end. “In short, the US and Israel have started this war with vague and unachievable objectives, with no international law base, and little or no support from Gulf states or other US allies,” said Lord Ricketts, a former UK national security adviser.
And from WaPo
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2026/02/28/iran-war-strikes-bombing-trump-nuclear/
...
It’s essential to think through the endgame when deciding to kill the leaders of another country. Trump urged civilians to “take over” the government after the airstrikes finish. “It will be yours to take,” he said. “This will be probably your only chance for generations.” If only it was that easy.
It’s possible a military junta gains control and intensifies repression. It’s also possible that a country of 93 million, more than twice the geographic size of Texas, splinters along ethnic lines. That could mean civil war and instability that leads to the intervention of neighboring armies.
It’s hard to see how “freedom for the people” can be accomplished in any meaningful sense without some U.S. boots on the ground, at least for a time. Yet Trump appears to lack any appetite for doing so. That might give pause to civilians trying to decide whether to risk their lives by rising up.
I can't find the article, but one article I didn't bookmark speculated that the attack could strengthen, not weaken, the IRGC. I did come across a headline from Foreign Policy to that effect, but hit a paywall. If anyone has a subscription to, I'd love to see a gift link to this article:
https://foreignpolicy.com/2026/02/28/iran-khamenei-ayatollah-assassination-israel-us-war/
Iran Is Built to Withstand the Ayatollah’s Assassination
The U.S. and Israeli militaries are targeting Iran’s leaders—but that may only strengthen the state.
...
paywall
= new reply since forum marked as read
