The hope that airstrikes can catalyze a popular uprising for regime change is historically unfounded. Unlike in Afghanistan or Libya where local ground forces existed, there is no organized army on the ground in Iran to capitalize on air power, making a decapitation strategy highly unlikely to succeed.
The October 7th attacks, intended to advance the Palestinian cause, were a catastrophic strategic error. They eliminated previous restraints on Israel, allowing it to unleash its full military capacity as the region's superpower, ultimately leading to the decimation of Hamas, Hezbollah, and their primary sponsor, Iran.
Iran's attempt to sow regional instability by attacking nine Arab countries backfired. Instead of creating chaos, these militarily insignificant 'pinprick' attacks eliminated neutrality and pushed Gulf states to fully support the US-Israeli mission against Iran, viewing it as a necessary response.
Unlike regimes centered on a single dictator like Saddam Hussein, Iran's power structure is a complex, institutionalized relationship between its clerical and military establishments. This distributed power makes the regime resilient to 'decapitation' strikes aimed at killing senior leaders, as there is no single point of failure.
Russia, as a commodity superpower, profits from the instability that drives up oil and gas prices. Conversely, China's economic model depends on integrated global markets and trade. This fundamental difference in core interests presents a strategic opportunity for the West to drive a wedge between the two powers.
Defining success as an ambitious, all-or-nothing outcome like 'regime change' is a critical mistake. Instead, administrations should set clear, measurable military objectives, such as degrading missile capabilities or naval threats. This allows them to define success, declare victory, and create a clear off-ramp for military campaigns.
Breaking from typical 'Global South' alignment, India has adopted a pragmatic, realpolitik approach to the Iran conflict. It has not condemned the US-Israeli attacks, reflecting a strategic calculation that its future economic interests lie with the technological power of Israel and the capital of the Gulf states, not a destabilizing Iran.
By forgoing consultation with allies, Congress, or the UN, the Trump administration frames its military action as ad hoc rather than a defense of international rules. This erodes legitimacy and alienates key European partners who prioritize a rules-based system, contrasting sharply with the coalition-building of past interventions like the Iraq War.