When U.S. President Donald Trump announced that the United States was at war with Iran, he called on the country’s people to rise in revolt. “When we are finished, take over your government,” Trump said on February 28. “This will be probably your only chance for generations.” But in the days after, his administration backed away from calls for regime change. “This is not a so-called regime change war,” U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said on March 2. Vice President JD Vance reinforced this message: “Whatever happens with the regime in one form or another, it’s incidental to the president’s primary objective here, which is to make sure the Iranian terrorist regime does not build a nuclear bomb.” Eventually, Trump began suggesting that by killing Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and his top deputies, Washington had already done what it needed to make Iran less threatening—and had, in fact, achieved regime change of a sort. “They have a new set of leaders, and we find them very reasonable,” the president said in mid-April.

It's easy to see why the White House has seemingly abandoned its efforts to topple the Islamic Republic wholesale. Research shows that it is extremely difficult—perhaps impossible—to down a government through a bombing campaign. Practical experience, meanwhile, shows that successful regime change endeavors can produce a wide array of unfortunate consequences, such as the chaos in Libya that followed Muammar al-Qaddafi or the decade of violence that came after Saddam Hussein in Iraq. But if Trump thinks Iran’s new leaders are less radical than their predecessors, he is sorely mistaken. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps generals who now control the country are, if anything, more hard-line than their predecessors. Iran’s new supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, is Ali Khamenei’s son. His entire family was just killed by the Americans and Israelis, and he was likely put in charge by the IRGC. These new elites will thus remain highly repressive at home and aggressive abroad. They will continue to menace the United States and its regional partners. It would be better for Iran and better for the world if they lose power and are succeeded by actual representatives of the population.

That does not mean Washington should return to war and keep fighting until the regime is finished. That is a task for the Iranian people, and they are up to it: over the last five years, Iranians have taken to the streets in increasing numbers to protest the regime’s repression and economic mismanagement. There is a reason Trump began the war with a call for them to resume demonstrations. But it does mean Trump must help their cause by being very selective about the peace deal he signs. Any deal that affords Iran widespread sanctions relief—even if it features hard limits on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure, missile programs, and support for proxies—could give the hard-line Iranian leaders Trump helped install a new lease on life. Instead, then, the United States should pursue more modest arrangements, like one that continues the current cease-fire agreement while opening the Strait of Hormuz and maintaining intense pressure on the Iranian system. Such an outcome won’t be as satisfying for Trump, who wants to make sweeping deals. But it is the best way to prevent Iran from rebuilding its damaged military over the long term—and to get actual regime........

© Foreign Affairs