The endgame in Iran: No stopping until regime-change

The war between the U.S., Israel and Iran has entered a decisive phase that may determine the political future of the Middle East for decades to come.

President Trump declared that there will be no deal with the Iranian regime — nothing short of unconditional surrender. Tehran responded with predictable defiance, announcing that it would never surrender. Yet behind the regime’s rhetoric, reality appears very different.

Much of the leadership now reportedly communicates from undisclosed locations, hiding from sustained strikes while the propaganda machine attempts to project strength and resilience.

The scale of the military campaign has been extraordinary. In the first week alone, the U.S. reportedly struck approximately 3,000 Iranian targets across the country and the region. Israel has launched repeated waves of air strikes — more than twenty separate operations — systematically dismantling the regime’s military infrastructure. Missile launchers, air defense systems, command centers and naval facilities have been destroyed. Advanced weapons systems and new technologies, including next-generation laser defense platforms, are shaping the battlefield.

Israel has reportedly targeted and dismantled hardened command structures associated with the regime’s leadership, including the underground bunker networks linked to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. Several key figures may have been killed in these operations, though the regime has yet to publicly acknowledge casualties buried under the rubble of destroyed facilities.

Meanwhile, the Islamic Republic’s military capacity has been devastated. What once appeared to be a formidable regional force increasingly looks like what many analysts suspected all along: a paper tiger built on intimidation, propaganda and bluff.

For decades, the regime invested enormous resources in projecting power across the Middle East, building proxy networks and threatening neighboring states. Now it faces an unprecedented strategic crisis. Today, it is focused primarily on surviving.

The central question confronting policymakers in Washington and Jerusalem is not whether the regime’s military capabilities can be degraded — that process is already underway — but whether the campaign will stop short of dismantling the Islamic Republic itself. Anything short of regime-change risks allowing the system to recover, reorganize and once again threaten regional stability.

The military balance of power favors the U.S. and Israel. Iran’s conventional warfighting capabilities have been severely degraded. Air superiority allows continued targeting of strategic assets, meaning the regime’s ability to project military power beyond its borders will keep declining as long as the campaign persists. In the short run, this places the regime in a defensive posture.

But the weakening of Iran’s military does not automatically translate to the collapse of the regime. The Islamic Republic has historically relied less on conventional military strength and more on asymmetric tools — intelligence networks, ideological mobilization, proxy militias and global terrorism. Even if its missile forces, navy and air defenses are heavily damaged, the regime’s internal security structures — the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the domestic Basij security force, intelligence services and propaganda apparatus — can still function. Note that these institutions exist primarily to protect the regime rather than to defend the country.

As a result, the next phase of the conflict may shift toward asymmetric warfare. Tehran’s strategy has long been to prolong and expand conflicts to offset its conventional disadvantages. Cyber operations, proxy attacks and terrorist operations could increasingly replace large-scale battlefield confrontations. Such a strategy is designed to create political fatigue in Western capitals and weaken the coalition opposing the regime.

Another uncertainty concerns the regime’s internal political structure. Even if military infrastructure is destroyed, the ideological core of the system may remain intact. Authoritarian systems have historically survived severe military crises if their repression mechanisms remain functional. The true strategic turning point would not simply be the destruction of military assets but the fragmentation or elimination of the regime’s central power structure.

At the same time, the Islamic Republic faces a profound legitimacy crisis inside Iran. Years of economic hardship, corruption and violent repression have alienated large segments of Iranian society. The war adds another layer of instability. If unrest expands while the regime’s security apparatus becomes overstretched or divided, the possibility of internal political transformation increases.

Yet history also demonstrates that external pressure alone rarely produces stable political transitions. Without a coherent national alternative capable of unifying society, the collapse of an authoritarian regime can produce fragmentation or civil conflict.

The current conflict therefore raises several critical strategic questions.

First, will the U.S. and Israel continue the campaign until the regime’s core power structure collapses, or will they accept a temporary weakening of the Islamic Republic? If the regime survives, it could rebuild its networks and resume its confrontational policies within a few years. Therefore, for Washington and Jerusalem, anything short of regime change risks becoming a strategic loss.

Second, there is the question of Iran’s internal political future. Many Iranians believe their country must be allowed to choose a legitimate national leadership capable of restoring stability and rebuilding international relationships. For many opposition supporters, Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi represents such a national alternative.

Third, the war raises concerns about the territorial integrity of Iran itself. Reports suggesting that external actors might support Kurdish separatist groups have generated alarm among Iranian nationalists. Iran is not a fragile or artificial state. It is a civilization with more than 5,500 years of history and a 2,500-year tradition of statehood dating back to Cyrus the Great. Any strategy that encourages separatism risks producing prolonged insurgency and civil war rather than peaceful political transition.

Fourth, the regime’s recent diplomatic gestures — including apologies from Iranian officials to Persian Gulf States — may represent tactical deception rather than genuine moderation. After devastating strikes destroyed roughly ninety percent of its missile-launch capabilities, Tehran suddenly began sending conciliatory signals. Yet deception has long been a feature of the regime’s political strategy.

Finally, there are signs of cracks within the regime’s own leadership. Internal divisions, the loss of military capability and the destruction of command infrastructure have put unprecedented pressure on the system.

The coming weeks may prove decisive. Trump has warned that Iran could soon be hit even harder. Israeli and American forces continue to target what military strategists describe as the regime’s “center of gravity” — its command structures, military leadership and strategic infrastructure.

But the ultimate outcome of this war will not be determined solely by bombs or missiles. It will depend on whether the campaign continues until the regime’s power structure collapses or stops prematurely, allowing the Islamic Republic to survive in weakened form.

If the current pressure leads to regime change, the door could open for Iranians to reclaim their country and determine their political future. That process will not be easy. Even after the fall of the regime, underground networks of the clerical system could remain active for years, attempting to mobilize religious support and rebuild their influence.

If the regime survives, Iran risks entering a prolonged period of instability or even civil conflict as competing forces struggle for control.

For Israel, the stakes are existential. Israeli leaders believe they cannot accept a strategic gamble that leaves the regime intact and capable of rebuilding its military power. For the U.S., allowing the Islamic Republic to survive this confrontation could transform a military victory into a political defeat.

Ultimately, however, the future of Iran belongs to Iranians. As a nation with one of the deepest historical identities in the world, Iranians will seek the opportunity to choose their own legitimate leadership and rebuild their country after decades of ideological rule.

If that transformation occurs, it could end nearly half a century of hostility between Iran and the U.S. and Israel. A new Iran could once again become a constructive regional actor and a partner rather than an adversary. The war now unfolding may therefore represent not only a military campaign but a historic turning point.

Whether it leads to lasting change or merely to another cycle of conflict will depend on the decisions made in the weeks ahead.

Erfan Fard is a Middle East political analyst. His latest book, “Tehran’s Dictator,” examines the theocratic era of Ali Khamenei, from 1989 to 2026.

Copyright 2026 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

More Opinions - National Security News

2 states approved permanent standard time. Others are hoping to do the same

As DOJ lawyers face complaints, agency seeks tighter grasp on state bar ethics ...

The war on fraud is really a war on the poor

Senate Democrat says Congress should fund 4 agencies under DHS, continue ...

Trump says he won’t sign any bills into law until SAVE America Act passes

Trump rejects UK's offer to send aircraft carriers to Middle East: 'We will ...

Noem’s ouster could pave way to reopen shuttered Homeland Security Department

Trump’s voting bill ultimatum adds to pressure on Congress

Daylight saving: Why these two states didn’t change their clocks this morning

Buttigieg leans on combat experience to criticize Trump’s ‘war of choice’ ...

Former Joint Chiefs chair on Iran conflict: ‘I worry about this getting drawn ...

Newsom calls on DHS to direct Noem ad campaign funding to Los Angeles fire ...

Catalytic converter theft is back. Here’s who’s being targeted

Tillis: Republicans have ‘lost the debate’ on immigration

Former Proud Boys leader Enrique Tarrio posts photo with Rubio at ‘Shield of ...

Trump says rising oil prices ‘a very small price to pay’ for ‘safety and ...

This week on The Hill: House Republicans head to Florida to sharpen ...

19 states approved permanent daylight saving time. Why they still have to ...

The Hill Podcasts – Morning Report

© The Hill