It’s about regime change, no doubt

We are now in the fifth day of the American and Israeli assault on Iran. Based on the fighting in the first three days, Nicole Grajewski charted their targeting this way:

Essentially, this signals a campaign to destroy the regime as well as its means of defending itself and projecting force beyond Iran’s borders.

In the meanwhile, Iran is targeting not only Israel but also US bases and allies in the region, especially nearby Qatar and the UAE. By surviving the assault and widening the war, Tehran is hoping to raise the costs for the US and make President Trump back down or out. Iran does not need to “win.” It only needs not to lose.

What is it really about?

Meanwhile, the American administration continues to be unable to explain coherently why the war started and what they are trying to achieve:

President Trump, Defense Secretary Hegseth, and Secretary of State Rubio have offered several possibilities. They include an imminent threat of attack, brutal repression of protests, long-range missiles, the Iranian nuclear program, and destabilization of the Middle East. Likely all of these contributed.

But it would be a mistake to parse too finely. Trump is not a man who thinks too much. He reacts, based on instinct. In recent weeks, failure of the Iran’s to accept his insistence on dismantling their nuclear program pushed him towards regime change. All the other problems, he figures, will evaporate if the Islamic Republic disappears.

That is what he is in fact aiming for, though he is clever enough to deny it. He wants to be able to move the goal posts.

What are the odds?

Many think that air attacks alone will not bring about regime change. Even much weaker regimes have survived until the victor deploys ground troops. That Trump will not want to do, with the possible exception of a small number of special forces to attack particular targets or help Iranians resisting the regime. He is talking with Iranian Kurds who want to be liberated.

One route to regime change might be an end to the war. That is what happened in Serbia after the NATO war to protect Kosovo ended. It took a year, but Serbs voted out Slobodan Milosevic and popular demonstrations forced him out of office.

The Islamic Republic will not make the same mistakes Milosevic made. He allowed an election with ballots counted and results posted at the polling places. That enabled civil society organizations to know the results before the regime did and prevent any post-election fraud. In Iran, candidates are vetted and disqualified before voting, which yields predictable results. Most opponents of the regime don’t bother voting.

But Iranians might well take to the streets if the bombing were to stop. The question then will be whether the security services still have the will and capacity to repress post-war demonstrations. Even failure to do so in some provincial backwater could cascade into regime change.

The broader implications

The implications of this war are broader than Iran and the Middle East. Trump had already blown a big hole in the post-World War II rules-based order with his capture of Venezuelan President Maduro, his threats to take Greenland from Denmark, his arbitrary and capricious tariffs, and his sympathy with Russian President Putin’s war objectives in Ukraine. The assault on Iran is another step towards a “might makes right” world. It fits the UN definition of aggression.

Admittedly the rules-based order already leaked like a sieve. The greater powers often excepted themselves from the rules. Now the world order is in tatters. We are going to miss it when it is gone.