Beyond the immediate conflict, Israeli strategists see a long-term opportunity. If the current regime falls, they hope to restore the strong alliance that existed with non-Arab Iran before the 1979 Islamic Revolution, which was based on shared regional interests.

The Trump administration's apparent strategy of decapitating leadership to find a compliant successor is unlikely to work in Iran. Unlike Venezuela, Iran's power is deeply institutionalized, it lacks an obvious cooperative figure, and potential US targets for that role have already been eliminated.

While a Trump administration might be tempted to cut a deal and withdraw from conflict with Iran, Israel's post-October 7th security doctrine has changed. Netanyahu's government will likely push hard for complete regime change, complicating any US efforts to de-escalate for political convenience.

The US attack on Iran was not part of a grand strategy, but the result of Israeli PM Benjamin Netanyahu's two-decade campaign to persuade a US president to act. Professor Allison describes Netanyahu as a 'magician' who successfully 'mesmerized' President Trump into initiating what is effectively 'Bibi's war.'

While currently aligned, the long-term interests of Israel and the US in a war with Iran could split. Israel seeks total elimination of Iran's missile threat, implying a prolonged conflict. The US, however, may have less tolerance for a drawn-out war due to concerns about its impact on global energy prices and the economy.

Israel's initial war plan was a targeted campaign against Iran's ballistic missile project. The conflict escalated into a broader, less attainable mission of regime change after the Trump administration joined, demonstrating how a powerful ally's involvement can lead to strategic "mission creep."

The US and Israel are operationally successful in degrading Iran's military capabilities. However, leadership has failed to articulate a coherent strategic objective for the war, making it difficult to define victory or know when the conflict will end.

Despite rhetoric supporting protesters in Iran and Venezuela, the Trump administration's actions suggest a preference for replacing existing leaders with more compliant strongmen. In Venezuela, this meant dealing with Maduro's VP, indicating a pragmatic focus on control and stability over messy, long-term nation-building.

The US approach to Iran is not traditional regime change with ground troops. Instead, it involves targeted strikes to eliminate key leaders ("decapitation"), creating a power vacuum with the hope that the already revolutionary-minded Iranian public will topple the government from within.