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).
There is no reason to believe that there is one person in this administration who possesses even one chromosome for strategic thinking and execution. I think Trump's goal was, and is, to accede to Netanyahu's wishes.
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 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.
Given what happened during the attempted regime changes in Iraq, Syria and Gaza, do you think the Iranian people would trust the US or Israel to not inflict civilian casualties?
Not at all. And we’ve seen their disregard of 165 7-12 year old girls in school who were murdered for nothing but a commodity that will fill the pockets of those already living with more than they are worth as humans.
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.
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.
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.
I have been following your analysis with great interest and find it consistently rigorous and insightful.
From a longer-term strategic perspective, I view the current conflict trajectory as part of a continuum that can be traced back to the 2003 invasion of Iraq under George W. Bush. While such an assessment may have appeared speculative in earlier years, recent shifts in official rhetoric and policy framing suggest a more explicit articulation of underlying drivers.
Notably, statements from certain U.S. figures—including Pete Hegseth—and others in comparable positions increasingly incorporate references that signal identity-based and, at times, religiously framed perspectives. This evolution raises the possibility that elements of the conflict are being interpreted—and potentially operationalized—through a civilizational or religious lens.
When considered alongside the ideological undercurrents present within segments of Christian and Jewish Zionist thought, this dimension may help explain aspects of strategic behavior, alliance formation, and escalation patterns that are otherwise difficult to reconcile through purely conventional geopolitical analysis.
I believe a structured examination of this vector—approached with analytical rigor and evidentiary discipline—could materially enhance the depth and predictive value of your future assessments.
One reservation I have about this analysis is that it doesn't seem to align with the apparent operational goals of the attack on Iran by the United States and Israel.
It completely makes sense that an air campaign alone doesn't deliver regime collapse, and the United States and Israel have plenty of experience with this.
One of the more recently devastating air campaigns conducted by Israel was the bombing of Lebanon and the assassination of many layers of the Hezbollah leadership. However, Hezbollah hasn't completely collapsed even after the pager attack.
Other examples of recent Israeli air campaigns include repeated operations in Gaza and the Western air campaigns against Syria's Assad.
The United States and Israel also conducted recent air campaigns against the Houthi militia in Yemen, with even B-2 bombers involved. The Houthi militia is still standing today, and that wasn't even the first aerial campaign they have been subjected to. Saudi Arabia and its Gulf coalition also bombed them continuously for years.
Iran is not Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria's Assad, or even Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Iran is bigger and more prepared than all of them combined.
The Iranian people may not overwhelmingly support the regime. However, there is no reason to believe they are expecting a better outcome under a US and Israeli invasion or under a puppet regime that they control.
The outcomes of Western hegemony are everywhere for them to see. The trail of destruction left by American and Israeli war machines and the failed states they left behind is clear.
From Libya, Somalia, Yemen, Syria, and Iraq all the way to Afghanistan, nowhere Western militaries touched with the promise of liberation is doing better than Iran today.
That's on top of them having the full knowledge that American sanctions and non-stop covert financial and cyber attacks are why their economy is crippled today.
Iranians also know that the only reason France has nuclear weapons and they don't is because of their faith.
All of that, without even mentioning the geography and historical pride of the Persians, means the combined intelligence prowess of the United States and Israel couldn't have possibly been naive enough to have any actionable confidence in the Iranian government collapsing in a single military campaign.
In my opinion, the goal of this military campaign can only be the one thing that all those recent air campaigns have at least partially achieved. This is what the Israelis have been calling the Syria or Lebanon model.
This goal is to establish complete control of the Iranian airspace. It would also involve a significant degradation of the Iranian attack arsenal until the Iranians would accept any kind of ceasefire.
After that, the attacks would likely continue over many years. The objective would be to deny Iran any opportunity to rebuild while continuously weakening them one attack at a time until they lose the will to fight.
Of course, even this goal of gradual degradation is built on two major assumptions.
The first assumption is that Iran will not escalate and most definitely won't attack American infrastructure in the Gulf, especially when the Gulf countries made it clear that they don't support or participate in the conflict.
I believe the past restraint that Iran has shown in recent conflicts is the reason why the Israelis and Americans were probably overconfident about this assumption.
The second assumption is that the combined weight of American air defenses and early warning infrastructure, the multi-layered Israeli air defenses, and the aerial campaign would limit the damage of Iran's response.
That response was expected to be primarily targeted at Israel.
However, Iran's response meant that neither of the above assumptions came true.
Iran didn't only attack the Gulf countries. It also heavily targeted the entire infrastructure that the second assumption was built on.
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…
I think my father and many other WWII veterans who fought the Japanese in the Pacific Theater would be taken aback by a comment that appears to dismiss their contribution to the cause. In fact, there's credible evidence to assert that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were unnecessary; that is, that the Japanese were already defeated.
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).
There is no reason to believe that there is one person in this administration who possesses even one chromosome for strategic thinking and execution. I think Trump's goal was, and is, to accede to Netanyahu's wishes.
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 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?
Given what happened during the attempted regime changes in Iraq, Syria and Gaza, do you think the Iranian people would trust the US or Israel to not inflict civilian casualties?
Not at all. And we’ve seen their disregard of 165 7-12 year old girls in school who were murdered for nothing but a commodity that will fill the pockets of those already living with more than they are worth as humans.
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.
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.
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).
I have been following your analysis with great interest and find it consistently rigorous and insightful.
From a longer-term strategic perspective, I view the current conflict trajectory as part of a continuum that can be traced back to the 2003 invasion of Iraq under George W. Bush. While such an assessment may have appeared speculative in earlier years, recent shifts in official rhetoric and policy framing suggest a more explicit articulation of underlying drivers.
Notably, statements from certain U.S. figures—including Pete Hegseth—and others in comparable positions increasingly incorporate references that signal identity-based and, at times, religiously framed perspectives. This evolution raises the possibility that elements of the conflict are being interpreted—and potentially operationalized—through a civilizational or religious lens.
When considered alongside the ideological undercurrents present within segments of Christian and Jewish Zionist thought, this dimension may help explain aspects of strategic behavior, alliance formation, and escalation patterns that are otherwise difficult to reconcile through purely conventional geopolitical analysis.
I believe a structured examination of this vector—approached with analytical rigor and evidentiary discipline—could materially enhance the depth and predictive value of your future assessments.
Great read, thanks.
One reservation I have about this analysis is that it doesn't seem to align with the apparent operational goals of the attack on Iran by the United States and Israel.
It completely makes sense that an air campaign alone doesn't deliver regime collapse, and the United States and Israel have plenty of experience with this.
One of the more recently devastating air campaigns conducted by Israel was the bombing of Lebanon and the assassination of many layers of the Hezbollah leadership. However, Hezbollah hasn't completely collapsed even after the pager attack.
Other examples of recent Israeli air campaigns include repeated operations in Gaza and the Western air campaigns against Syria's Assad.
The United States and Israel also conducted recent air campaigns against the Houthi militia in Yemen, with even B-2 bombers involved. The Houthi militia is still standing today, and that wasn't even the first aerial campaign they have been subjected to. Saudi Arabia and its Gulf coalition also bombed them continuously for years.
Iran is not Hamas, Hezbollah, Syria's Assad, or even Saddam Hussein's Iraq. Iran is bigger and more prepared than all of them combined.
The Iranian people may not overwhelmingly support the regime. However, there is no reason to believe they are expecting a better outcome under a US and Israeli invasion or under a puppet regime that they control.
The outcomes of Western hegemony are everywhere for them to see. The trail of destruction left by American and Israeli war machines and the failed states they left behind is clear.
From Libya, Somalia, Yemen, Syria, and Iraq all the way to Afghanistan, nowhere Western militaries touched with the promise of liberation is doing better than Iran today.
That's on top of them having the full knowledge that American sanctions and non-stop covert financial and cyber attacks are why their economy is crippled today.
Iranians also know that the only reason France has nuclear weapons and they don't is because of their faith.
All of that, without even mentioning the geography and historical pride of the Persians, means the combined intelligence prowess of the United States and Israel couldn't have possibly been naive enough to have any actionable confidence in the Iranian government collapsing in a single military campaign.
In my opinion, the goal of this military campaign can only be the one thing that all those recent air campaigns have at least partially achieved. This is what the Israelis have been calling the Syria or Lebanon model.
This goal is to establish complete control of the Iranian airspace. It would also involve a significant degradation of the Iranian attack arsenal until the Iranians would accept any kind of ceasefire.
After that, the attacks would likely continue over many years. The objective would be to deny Iran any opportunity to rebuild while continuously weakening them one attack at a time until they lose the will to fight.
Of course, even this goal of gradual degradation is built on two major assumptions.
The first assumption is that Iran will not escalate and most definitely won't attack American infrastructure in the Gulf, especially when the Gulf countries made it clear that they don't support or participate in the conflict.
I believe the past restraint that Iran has shown in recent conflicts is the reason why the Israelis and Americans were probably overconfident about this assumption.
The second assumption is that the combined weight of American air defenses and early warning infrastructure, the multi-layered Israeli air defenses, and the aerial campaign would limit the damage of Iran's response.
That response was expected to be primarily targeted at Israel.
However, Iran's response meant that neither of the above assumptions came true.
Iran didn't only attack the Gulf countries. It also heavily targeted the entire infrastructure that the second assumption was built on.
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…
(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.
I think my father and many other WWII veterans who fought the Japanese in the Pacific Theater would be taken aback by a comment that appears to dismiss their contribution to the cause. In fact, there's credible evidence to assert that Hiroshima and Nagasaki were unnecessary; that is, that the Japanese were already defeated.
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