Introduction to a Dangerous Moment
The decision by the United States and Israel to engage in a new conflict with Iran marks a highly perilous moment with unpredictable consequences. Israel described its attack as "pre-emptive."
However, the evidence suggests this is not a response to an imminent threat, which the term pre-emption implies. Rather, it appears to be a war of choice.
Strategic Calculations
Israel and the United States have assessed that the Islamic regime in Iran is vulnerable; it is grappling with a severe economic crisis, the repercussions of a harsh crackdown on protesters earlier this year, and defenses still weakened from last summer's war. Their conclusion seems to be that this is an opportunity not to be missed.
This action also represents another setback to the fragile system of international law.
Statements from Leaders
Both President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated that Iran poses a danger to their countries – Trump described it as a global threat. The Islamic regime is certainly their adversary. However, it is difficult to see how the legal justification of self-defense applies given the significant power imbalance between the US and Israel on one side and Iran on the other.
The Nature of War and Political Objectives
War is inherently political. Armed conflict is difficult to control once initiated, and leaders require clear objectives.
Benjamin Netanyahu has viewed Iran as Israel's most dangerous enemy for decades. For him, this is an opportunity to inflict maximum damage on the Tehran regime and its military capabilities. Netanyahu also faces a general election later this year. Evidence from the two years of conflict with Hamas indicates he believes his political position strengthens during wartime.
Donald Trump's objectives have shifted over time. In January, he told Iranian protesters that assistance was forthcoming. At that time, much of the US Navy was engaged in efforts to remove Venezuela's leader, limiting military options.
While the US deployed two carrier strike groups to the region along with substantial land-based firepower, Trump frequently cited concerns about Iran's nuclear ambitions, despite declaring after last summer's war that the Iranian nuclear program had been "obliterated."
Iran's Nuclear Program and Evidence
The Iranian regime has consistently denied seeking a nuclear weapon but has enriched uranium to levels without civilian nuclear power applications. At minimum, it appears to want the option to build a bomb. To date, Israel and the US have presented no evidence indicating an imminent nuclear weapon development.
Messages to the Iranian People
In his video address, Trump told the Iranian people that "the hour of freedom" was near. Netanyahu conveyed a similar message, suggesting the war would provide the Iranian people an opportunity to overthrow their regime. This outcome is uncertain.
Historical Context of Regime Change
There is no precedent for regime change resulting solely from air strikes. Saddam Hussein was overthrown in 2003 by a large US-led invasion. Muammar Gaddafi was overthrown in 2011 by rebel forces supported by NATO and some Arab states. Both cases led to state collapse, civil war, and thousands of deaths. Libya remains a failed state, and Iraq continues to face consequences from the invasion and ensuing violence.
Even if this were the first instance of air power alone toppling a regime, the Islamic regime would not be replaced by a liberal democracy respecting human rights. No credible alternative government in exile exists.
The Complexity of the Iranian Regime
Over nearly fifty years, the Iranian regime has built a complex political system supported by ideology, corruption, and ruthless force when necessary. In January, Tehran demonstrated its willingness to kill protesters. Its security forces have orders to shoot and kill thousands of citizens challenging the system and demanding freedom.
Assassination Strategy and the Supreme Leader
Perhaps the US and Israel aim to eliminate Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Israel has employed assassination as a strategy, killing Hamas and Hezbollah leaders in the past two years.
The Islamic regime in Iran differs significantly. It governs a state, not an armed movement, and is not a one-man operation. If the supreme leader were killed, he would likely be replaced by another cleric supported by the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), which operates alongside conventional forces with the explicit mission of defending the regime domestically and abroad.
IRGC and Ideological Resistance
Trump offered the IRGC immunity if they disarmed, or else faced certain death. The IRGC is unlikely to accept this offer. Martyrdom is a central theme in the ideology of the Islamic Republic and Shia Islam.
Trump views politics and life primarily through transactional terms, as described in his book, The Art of the Deal. However, engaging with Iran requires understanding the power of ideology and belief, which is more difficult to quantify.
Tehran's Response and Distrust
As the crisis escalated since the start of the year and the US assembled its military presence, signs indicated Tehran's leadership saw war as inevitable. They engaged in talks, aware that negotiations were ongoing last summer when Israel attacked and the US supported them.
They do not trust the US or Israel. During his first term, Trump withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal, the JCPOA, which limited Iran's nuclear program and was a key foreign policy achievement of the Obama administration.
There have been indications that Iran might have been willing to accept a revised JCPOA to buy time. However, the US appeared to demand severe restrictions on Iran's missile program and support for regional allies opposing Israel and the US.
This was unacceptable to Iran, amounting to capitulation. Surrendering missiles and allies might, in the leadership's view, increase vulnerability to regime change more than the threat or reality of attack.
Regional and Global Implications
Iran's leaders will now consider how to endure the war, survive, and manage its aftermath. Neighboring countries, led by Saudi Arabia, will be concerned about the significant uncertainty and potential consequences of these developments.
Given the Middle East's capacity to export instability, renewed and intensified conflict deepens the region's and the wider world's turbulence, violence, and danger.
