US-Israel Strike on Iran: Escalation Risks & Trump’s Regime Change Push
A large-scale joint military operation by the United States and Israel against Iranian leadership and capabilities has unfolded, accompanied by U.S. President Donald Trump’s call for “regime change” following protests brutally suppressed earlier in the year.
On , U.S. And Israeli forces struck hundreds of targets across the country, reportedly targeting several high-level leaders, including Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who, according to reports, was killed along with family members and key advisors.
Subsequent phases of the conflict are expected to be far more complex than previous engagements. A military operation in June was described as bold but limited, with Iran’s response – a strike on a pre-evacuated U.S. Base in Qatar – reportedly signaled in advance.
The latest attack, however, is characterized as having opened a “Pandora’s Box,” with no clear achievable objective or de-escalation path currently visible.
Iran had warned of retaliation prior to the strikes. Even a weakened regime retains significant military power and has reportedly been rebuilding its ballistic missile arsenal “at a rapid pace” since last June.
Iran has already launched hundreds of rockets at U.S. Bases and civilian targets belonging to allies.
Protest Turning Point
According to a report in Foreign Affairs, President Trump’s initial impetus for the attack stemmed from protests that shook Iran in late December. Initially sparked by anger among Iranian merchants fearing a collapsing national currency, the unrest spread across the country with calls for the overthrow of the regime.
This was followed by what is described as an exceptionally brutal campaign to suppress the protests, resulting in the deaths of at least several thousand people. On , as the death toll mounted, Trump warned that the U.S. Was prepared to support the protestors.
Previously, U.S. Responses had typically been limited to statements regarding the rights of protestors, condemnatory rhetoric, and sanctions against individuals involved in the repression. This time, Trump, having already demonstrated a willingness to follow through on threats in June, raised the prospect of direct U.S. Intervention.
The first concrete response was economic – the announcement of 25 percent tariffs on goods traded with Iran, followed by sanctions targeting Tehran’s “shadow banking” networks and regime officials. The second was Trump’s personal engagement with Elon Musk to counter Tehran’s internet blockade, and reports of thousands of “Starlink” devices being dispatched to Iran.
A third step was a brief suspension of diplomatic dialogue while the repression continued, accompanied by Trump’s call for Iranians to “continue to protest – capture over the institutions.”
Tehran, in turn, attempted to deter U.S. Intervention by threatening that any attack on the Islamic Republic, large or compact, would incur a significant response. U.S. Military personnel and assets, as well as those of its security partners in the region, would be targets.
Tensions Escalated
As tensions rose, U.S. Allies in the region reportedly urged Washington to proceed with caution, fearing they would be vulnerable to Iranian retaliatory actions. By mid-January, the U.S. Had bolstered its military presence in the region, including two aircraft carrier groups and dozens of aircraft – described as the largest concentration since the Iraq War over two decades ago.
With U.S. Forces massing, Trump reportedly issued an ultimatum to Tehran: the amassed force could strike “much harder” than in June if Iran did not accept a “fair and just deal.” Such a deal, as described, would include at least a rollback of Iran’s nuclear program, and more ambitiously, a cessation of ballistic missile development and support for regional non-state allies.
Numerous contacts took place between regional intermediaries attempting to revive diplomacy, which had stalled after 12 days of war last year. In February, three separate rounds of negotiations were held in Oman and Switzerland, but fundamental disagreements remained regarding Iranian nuclear concessions and the easing of U.S. Sanctions.
Iran’s efforts to separate non-nuclear issues, including its missile program and support for non-state actors, similarly reportedly did not meet Washington’s expectations. Progress failed to offset the accelerating trajectory toward confrontation, with “hawkish” voices in the U.S. And Israel reportedly pushing for war.
In his State of the Union address, Trump stated that the Iranians were “again pursuing their nefarious ambitions” in the nuclear sphere and “working on rockets that will soon reach the United States.” It was noted, however, that these threats were not considered inevitable.
While Tehran is not allowing international inspectors access to damaged nuclear facilities, U.S. Assessments reportedly indicate that uranium enrichment is not currently taking place. It was also stated that, following the disruption to Iran’s conventional capabilities after the June strikes, the prospect of intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of reaching U.S. Territory was a “matter of years.”
Despite this, on , Trump gave the order to carry out the strikes, opening a conflict whose direction is now demanding to predict.
A Fight for Survival
The logic behind Iran allowing retaliatory strikes against Israel and U.S. Bases in the Persian Gulf region is understood to be that any strike costing U.S. Lives and resources could be politically damaging to Trump, given his previous pledges to avoid military interventions.
Iran is reportedly hoping that Trump prefers limited, high-profile operations to prolonged and open-ended campaigns. Tehran is reportedly anticipating that by demonstrating the potential for unlimited escalation, it can deter Trump from continuing the campaign, as he did when he halted a costly war against the Houthis in Yemen last year.
This may prove to be a miscalculation, as Iran has repeatedly overestimated its capabilities and underestimated the resolve of its adversaries since the Hamas attack on Israel on . The risk of escalation in the short term remains very high, and a U.S. Retreat following Iranian strikes may be less likely, given the risk of Trump’s risky decision appearing unsuccessful.
Other experts suggest that the Iranian regime believes that external attacks will rally and unite Iranians under a single banner. However, this thinking may be flawed, given the regime’s recent spilling of thousands of people’s blood within the country. Nevertheless, if Trump’s plan is to have air strikes “finish the job from the top” and Iranians “from the bottom,” this strategy also has little potential, as there are few historical precedents for such an outcome.
More likely scenarios include greater control by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which has already become a significant political and economic force under Khamenei, or a protracted civil conflict.
As the Islamic Republic fights for its survival, predicting what happens next is impossible, but changes will undoubtedly be profound.
Based on information from Foreign Affairs.