My biggest question is do we actually think Trump is aiming for regime change? I believe Netanyahu is. But I think that Trump will happily quit in 3-4 weeks and call whatever disastrous state Iran is in a victory. Not that Trump is some brilliant strategist avoiding traps, he just likes to call things done.
I'm not even sure the White House has landed on a coherent mission statement yet, they keep contradicting each other. But I think Trump's only real goal has already been achieved; killing Khamenei as revenge for the assassination attempts.
If you've read the Author's other articles, he mentions that the enemy decides when the war is over. Trump can't stop it, unless he submits (for example, disarming Israel and abandoning USA bases).
The entire article makes no reference to how illegitimate this government has become. The examples of Russia, Germany and Iraq do not offer a parallel. Iranians have already came out in millions demanding the end of this regime. Multiple times since 2009. If the oppressive arms of the regime are weakened, the people may stand a chance. Iranians are not naive, we know the cost. But we’re ready to pay it. There is a beautiful story in there if you only wished to see it. And there is your ground force. The hammer and anvil.
The odds are still against the people, but with the number of IRGC and Basij bases and command centres dismantled, and the heavy losses they have suffered (1300 military casualties in 3 days), Iranians now stand a chance. It is possible the reformist faction may even throw them a fig leaf to save their own behind.
That's not how it works. A small minority of the 90 million and a few hundred thousand ex-pats scattered around the world do not change the rules nor the social norms inside Iran. Was Hamas toppled as the Gazan Govt as all the buildings were toppled? No.
Of course, the underlying assumption for the Iran Test is that the goal of decapitation strikes is regime change. Trump is a negotiator, so this is likely not the case.
In negotiation, one always considers the BATNA--best alternative to a negotiated settlement. If the alternative is to be blown up by ballistic missiles, future leaders who don't value martyrdom are likely to agree to worse terms than if the best alternative was to merely eat some sanctions.
Though the negotiating logic is solid here, the moral underpinnings are, of course, questionable at best.
Given this, it's reasonable for Trump to simply buzz off and hope the next regime leader will be more amenable to come to terms rather than be blown up... rinse, repeat, until he gets what he wants.
This is absolutely brilliant - clear, concise, and logical. Remember Vietnam: the US won every battle engagement, and even with air power and 500,000 troops in country, Viet Nam won.
I agree, the intent is more likely to do a Gaza in Iran. Just wreck the joint as much as possible to make it essentially dysfunctional, and like Venezuela unable to export Oil to anyone. Then ongoing selective bombing as required forever. I'm less sure Israel/US can succeed.
The template is mirrored in Serbia, Georgia, Armenia, Lebanon, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, Venezuela, Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Panama, Nicaragua, Syria, Iraq, Chechnya, North Korea, Ukraine, Belarus, Russia and all over Africa. History shows where this will ultimately end up for both Israel and America no matter what unfolds in Iran.
Bombing is one step removed from actually fighting a war. Much for show and as you said, that does equal regime change. Thanks for a thorough view of the situation.
The Vietnam war is another example of this theory. Mass bombings killed millions but at the end, VC political unity prevailed. And we had boots on the ground for several years…
Professor Pape, thank you for articulating this so clearly. Your explanation of elite survival incentives aligns closely with my own interest in systemic response patterns under external pressure. The distinction between physical destruction and political fracture is crucial. In complex conflicts, bombing appears to activate cohesion loops rather than collapse dynamics — unless the coercive core breaks from within. I appreciate the clarity you bring to this mechanism.
My interest is more long term and how this event will trigger multiple systems domains to respond automatically under constraint. More aligned with the idea of letting Pandora out of her box. Your line: "It is systemic political disintegration driven by mass defeat", imv will later apply more to the USA and Israel than it does to Iran today. But that's another story.
American munitions dropped on Japan before Hiroshima and Nagasaki: 160,800 tons that destroyed 40% of 66 targeted Japanese cities. This included the devastating March 9-10, 1945, firebombing of Tokyo, which destroyed over 30 square miles of the city and killed over 90,000 people.
So I doubt that there weren't all that many tables left to turn to ... or hide under.
This may explain why civil institutions, police stations and other elements of "regime coercion" seem to be being targeted along with the usual hate-fuelled targets: hospitals, schools, &c
This was a great read, thanks!
My biggest question is do we actually think Trump is aiming for regime change? I believe Netanyahu is. But I think that Trump will happily quit in 3-4 weeks and call whatever disastrous state Iran is in a victory. Not that Trump is some brilliant strategist avoiding traps, he just likes to call things done.
I'm not even sure the White House has landed on a coherent mission statement yet, they keep contradicting each other. But I think Trump's only real goal has already been achieved; killing Khamenei as revenge for the assassination attempts.
If you've read the Author's other articles, he mentions that the enemy decides when the war is over. Trump can't stop it, unless he submits (for example, disarming Israel and abandoning USA bases).
The entire article makes no reference to how illegitimate this government has become. The examples of Russia, Germany and Iraq do not offer a parallel. Iranians have already came out in millions demanding the end of this regime. Multiple times since 2009. If the oppressive arms of the regime are weakened, the people may stand a chance. Iranians are not naive, we know the cost. But we’re ready to pay it. There is a beautiful story in there if you only wished to see it. And there is your ground force. The hammer and anvil.
The odds are still against the people, but with the number of IRGC and Basij bases and command centres dismantled, and the heavy losses they have suffered (1300 military casualties in 3 days), Iranians now stand a chance. It is possible the reformist faction may even throw them a fig leaf to save their own behind.
That's not how it works. A small minority of the 90 million and a few hundred thousand ex-pats scattered around the world do not change the rules nor the social norms inside Iran. Was Hamas toppled as the Gazan Govt as all the buildings were toppled? No.
Odd that the raging protestors seen prior all but disappeared as soon as the military showed up, leaving one to ask: where are they now?
Of course, the underlying assumption for the Iran Test is that the goal of decapitation strikes is regime change. Trump is a negotiator, so this is likely not the case.
In negotiation, one always considers the BATNA--best alternative to a negotiated settlement. If the alternative is to be blown up by ballistic missiles, future leaders who don't value martyrdom are likely to agree to worse terms than if the best alternative was to merely eat some sanctions.
Though the negotiating logic is solid here, the moral underpinnings are, of course, questionable at best.
Given this, it's reasonable for Trump to simply buzz off and hope the next regime leader will be more amenable to come to terms rather than be blown up... rinse, repeat, until he gets what he wants.
This is absolutely brilliant - clear, concise, and logical. Remember Vietnam: the US won every battle engagement, and even with air power and 500,000 troops in country, Viet Nam won.
The goal is not regime change, but to turn Iran into a failed state like Iraq, Libya and Syria.
I agree, the intent is more likely to do a Gaza in Iran. Just wreck the joint as much as possible to make it essentially dysfunctional, and like Venezuela unable to export Oil to anyone. Then ongoing selective bombing as required forever. I'm less sure Israel/US can succeed.
The template is mirrored in Serbia, Georgia, Armenia, Lebanon, Yemen, Somalia, Sudan, Libya, Venezuela, Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Panama, Nicaragua, Syria, Iraq, Chechnya, North Korea, Ukraine, Belarus, Russia and all over Africa. History shows where this will ultimately end up for both Israel and America no matter what unfolds in Iran.
Bombing is one step removed from actually fighting a war. Much for show and as you said, that does equal regime change. Thanks for a thorough view of the situation.
The Vietnam war is another example of this theory. Mass bombings killed millions but at the end, VC political unity prevailed. And we had boots on the ground for several years…
Professor Pape, thank you for articulating this so clearly. Your explanation of elite survival incentives aligns closely with my own interest in systemic response patterns under external pressure. The distinction between physical destruction and political fracture is crucial. In complex conflicts, bombing appears to activate cohesion loops rather than collapse dynamics — unless the coercive core breaks from within. I appreciate the clarity you bring to this mechanism.
My interest is more long term and how this event will trigger multiple systems domains to respond automatically under constraint. More aligned with the idea of letting Pandora out of her box. Your line: "It is systemic political disintegration driven by mass defeat", imv will later apply more to the USA and Israel than it does to Iran today. But that's another story.
Good read, but there's a counter example - Serbians surrendered to airplanes, the only nation to do so (so far).
(Yet no regime in modern history has fallen solely because it was bombed from the air.)
What about Japan in WW2? Two bombs from the air via Tibbets and the Enola Gay and boom, the emperor ran to the table to surrender.
What is it you don't get about "solely"?
American munitions dropped on Japan before Hiroshima and Nagasaki: 160,800 tons that destroyed 40% of 66 targeted Japanese cities. This included the devastating March 9-10, 1945, firebombing of Tokyo, which destroyed over 30 square miles of the city and killed over 90,000 people.
So I doubt that there weren't all that many tables left to turn to ... or hide under.
This may explain why civil institutions, police stations and other elements of "regime coercion" seem to be being targeted along with the usual hate-fuelled targets: hospitals, schools, &c