Trump's Enormous Gamble on Regime Change in Iran -- The Atlantic

[ancianita]

by Tom Nichols
February 28, 2026

https://archive.ph/EF5W8

"The United States has gone to war against Iran. America has only one ally - Israel - in this operation (the Arab states of the Gulf, who fear the Iranian regime, are targets of Iran, but so far are not participating in the attack), and both Washington and Jerusalem are making claims about “imminent” threats that require “preemptive” strikes. But we should dispense with such statements: Iran is not presenting immediate danger to the United States or Israel. Even President Trump, in a recorded address, didn’t bother overly much with such excuses; instead he presented a farrago of charges and accusations going back a half-century that included everything from killing American troops in Iraq to terrorism. These indictments are all grounded in truth, but none present a rationale for immediate attack. Trump ended by calling on Iranians to rise up and overthrow their government.
.
This is not a preemptive war. It is a war of choice, a discretionary war. It is a war for regime change. Many of Iran’s 92 million people want the regime removed. But it is far from certain that this will be the outcome.

To think about the possible courses of this war, we should start by clearly understanding three realities:
First, Iran is a terrible regime that deserves to fall. The regime recently murdered thousands of its own citizens who were seeking freedom from their oppressive rule, and no one should be shedding tears for the mullahs hiding in their bunkers.

Second, “success” is not impossible - if by “success” we mean the fall of the ayatollahs and the rise of a better, more humane, pro-Western government that does not seek to destabilize the Middle East, dominate Lebanon, Iraq and Yemen, and eradicate Israel. But the path to that success is exceedingly narrow and mined with significant hazards. Destroying the regime’s capabilities is relatively easy, but nothing permanent - as Americans learned in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan - is achieved by bouncing rubble and piling up bodies. Destroying the regime itself is a far trickier business; dictatorships have a high pain tolerance, especially when the hapless citizens, not the leaders, bear the brunt of that pain.

Third, the president has not offered a strategy, or identified any conditions that would signal that U.S. goals have been achieved. Yes, he has vowed to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons, but beyond that, he seems to be arguing for just inflicting military damage on the regime, on the assumption that enough ordinance on enough targets will weaken the grip of the ayatollahs. Once the theocrats are on the ropes, the thinking seems to go, the people of Iran will finish the job of regime change for us...."

Much more on how trump's attack can go wrong, and why trump has exactly one shot at getting the attack on Iran right.

[hedda_foil]

1. "Success is not impossible," huh?

Success in Trump/Netanyahu terms means turning Iran into a happy colonial state, which can easily be plundered of its wealth without complaint.

Iran is not Venezuela.

[ancianita]

2. I hear you.

Trump and Netanyahu, for different reasons, can mess up a one car funeral. Still, if their goal is to weaken Iran such that it can no longer be the threat to Israel that it's been, I'm all for that.

Thanks for your thoughts.