The Iran War Has Only Just Begun

The Fantasy of Regime Change Lives On

There’s a tragic familiarity in watching the architects of global power repeat the same failing rituals, as though force alone has ever been enough to compel surrender in the face of ideology and nationalism. Nowhere is this more obvious than in the sudden flare-up between Israel and Iran, which is a confrontation decades in the making and infinitely more dangerous than most will admit. After America’s bombing campaign last night, which saw the destruction of Iran’s three largest nuclear facilities, a victorious Donald Trump released a message calling for peace. Supporters of the action are drunk with perceived triumph. For others with the ability to remember past the previous news cycle, the fear that this win is the start of a bloody and expensive new season of “nation building” is inescapable.

Israel and America’s opening salvos have taken a major toll on Iran, especially in regard to the country’s nuclear ambition. While not being discussed as much, Iran’s ballistic missiles have been blowing right through Israel’s celebrated air defenses, and few in Tel Aviv will publicly acknowledge how much damage is really being sustained. Regardless of the nuclear setback, there is no rationale behind the assumption that these attacks will subside. If anything, the recent punch in the mouth suffered by Iran could serve as a catalyst for even more severe attacks.

Here’s the question no one dares ask on camera: are we prepared to level Iran the way Gaza was leveled? Israel could get away with that kind of devastation in a densely packed enclave of two million. In contrast, Iran is a nation of over 90 million people. Even setting morality aside, the logistics of carrying out such an act are difficult to imagine.

America is already overstretched. While massive, our global footprint has become brittle. Iran is watching. So is China. And so, too, is Russia.

If Israel’s vaunted missile shields can’t even intercept a substantial portion of Iran’s incoming barrage, then what exactly does that say about the safety of American troops stationed across the Middle East? From Qatar to Bahrain to Syria, we are surrounded by potential flashpoints. Trump once vowed to wipe out the Houthis. Embarrassingly, thirty days later, he walked it back. He did so not because of principle, but because of resources. In truth, we couldn’t even spare the muscle for Yemen. Now imagine Iran.

And while Washington cheers, Tehran recalibrates. Everything from Iranian state media to official government communiqués makes one thing clear: they’re not going to surrender. In fact, this only deepens the regime’s conviction that nuclear weapons are not a luxury, but a necessity. Since the attacks and the corresponding declarations of victory, Israel has continued to be bombarded by an ever-increasing number of missile attacks. Questions over the validity of Trump’s claims of complete nuclear disarmament have already surfaced.

Iran, notably, is a signatory to the Non-Proliferation Treaty. It still hosts IAEA inspectors. It argued in good faith, although narrowly defined, with the West during the JCPOA years. But after being attacked despite that cooperation, what incentive remains for any state to trust disarmament treaties again? We are actively dismantling the entire concept of arms control before the world's eyes. Any future country facing similar pressure will look back at these days not as a lesson in diplomacy, but as a case study in why only force guarantees survival. Ukraine gave up its nukes, and now it’s partitioned and bleeding. North Korea held on and no one dares touch it. The lesson is loud and clear.

Meanwhile, war hawks in D.C. like Ted Cruz, Lindsey Graham, and other AIPAC darlings rattle sabers with a confidence unburdened by strategy. It's easy to advocate war when you won’t be the one serving in it. But what’s the endgame? Regime change? Complete surrender? By airstrikes alone? It didn’t work in Iraq. It didn’t work in Libya. We bombed Nazi Germany for years and still had to march into Berlin. Japan only surrendered after two atomic bombs. Even then, it required a full occupation. The fantasy that Iran will simply buckle under air pressure is as dangerous as it is deluded. China, watching from the wings, benefits from every hour this conflict drags on. And now Beijing sees opportunity. This conflict diverts U.S. attention from the South Pacific. Taiwan becomes more vulnerable by the day. The longer this lasts, the more emboldened China becomes.

Domestically, support is tepid at best. Just 16% of Americans support direct involvement. Even among Trump supporters, the appetite for war is incredibly low. Figures like Tucker Carlson and Marjorie Taylor Greene have tapped into a populist rejection of foreign entanglements. This isn't 2003. And Israel, for all its public lobbying, does not have the luxury of a years-long campaign like Ukraine. Its economy is faltering. The psychological toll of constant bombardment is growing. Unless America continues to engage in the conflict, Israel may find itself up against the wall, which makes them desperate and dangerous.

As someone who has supported Israel for much of my life, it is becoming harder and harder to reconcile that loyalty with what is unfolding. I supported a swift and forceful response after October 7th. But protracted revenge is not a strategy that can be accepted indefinitely. The strike on Iran may have been dramatic, but the aftershocks are already destabilizing a region barely held together by threats and bribes.

We’re left with an uncomfortable truth that the war machine keeps forgetting: air power alone does not topple regimes. It doesn’t rebuild societies. And it never, ever ends wars. It only begins them.

Regime change, a truly grotesque term after years of behavior not remotely resembling the narratives crafted for public consumption, isn’t about installing a democratic, stable, or even pro-American government. It’s about fragmentation. A fractured state, whether through micro-states, rival factions, or ongoing chaos, is easier to manage, infiltrate with NGOs, and ultimately control. Sometimes these splinters are cooperative; sometimes they’re violent. But in either case, balkanization serves the broader strategy of influence without responsibility. Short of sheer incompetence, the only plausible explanation for America's actions over the past two decades is a deliberate strategy of fragmentation. Beyond the noble rhetoric about preserving democracy and the classic fear-mongering, sowing instability to create more manageable, divided entities has been the only result achieved. If chaos was the goal, then mission accomplished.