According to , Iranians have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. “, he declared, as US and Israeli warplanes pounded Iranian cities and the compound of the country’s supreme leader. “When we’re done, take over your government. It will be yours for the taking. This will likely be your only chance for generations.”
What Trump said made it clear that they are seeking regime change. After decades of high tension, bitter counter-protests and isolated attacks, Washington has finally decided to attempt the complete overthrow of the Iranian government and seems to believe that ordinary citizens will rise up to complete the task.
The population of the country, after all, . Over the past decade, Iranians have repeatedly descended into mass protests against the regime. These protests usually stop only when the government responds with extreme violence. In December and January, for example, hundreds of thousands of Iranians protested for weeks — until security forces opened fire, killing thousands.
Photo from the recent protests in Iran
But now, American and Israeli aircraft are hitting Iran’s military and repressive apparatus, as well as other state institutions. They have killed Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and many top officials.
Where is Trump betting?
The Trump administration appears to be betting that the Iranian people will soon take over the “baton” of regime change, reignite the protests and remove a severely weakened authority.
However, experts appear deeply cautious. Political scientists and analysts of Iran — while they would like a change of leadership through popular mobilization — express doubts that even this extensive air campaign can lead to a successful insurgency.
First, aerial bombardment has historically failed to induce regime change. In addition, Iran has strong repressive apparatuses with extensive experience in suppressing popular uprisings.
The state had been preparing for an American attack for decades. And even if the regime is significantly weakened, the exhausted and shell-shocked citizens may be more concerned with survival than with participating in a new revolution. The opposition remains weak and deeply divided.
The example of Iraq
History offers examples. In 1991, during the Gulf War, George H.W. Bush publicly called on the Iraqi people to overthrow Saddam Hussein. When the Kurds and Shiites revolted, Saddam’s forces violently suppressed the uprising, killing tens of thousands of people. The regime remained in power for another 12 years.
Other air campaigns had a similar failure: in Korea, in Vietnam, even in Slobodan Milosevic’s Serbia. As political scientist Robert Pape points out, “bombings never brought citizens to the streets to overthrow their leader.”
There are two main reasons: bombings often rally the population around the national leadership, even if it is unpopular, and rarely completely neutralize the state’s repressive mechanisms. Protecting pro-democracy protesters requires troops on the ground — not just airstrikes.
In Iran, the situation is complex. Although many Iranians deeply dislike the regime, several are nationalist and wary of foreign interference. Others, out of desperation, may wish for American military intervention. But the regime has numerous and well-equipped repression apparatuses scattered throughout the country.
At the same time, the Iranian opposition is fragmented, with intense internal disputes, even over whether the former heir to the throne, Reza Pahlavi, should return to the limelight.
The other readings
There are, of course, different readings. In Libya, NATO airstrikes proved decisive in the fall of Muammar Gaddafi, although there was already an organized armed opposition there. Some analysts believe that the Iranians have shown that they are willing to make huge sacrifices to get rid of their leadership.
The US and Israeli attacks were indeed overwhelming. In addition to Khamenei, top security and military officials have been killed. However, it remains unclear how Iranian society as a whole feels. Videos of both celebrations and mourning are circulating.
Most analysts agree on only one thing: Iran will change. “The regime as we know it will not continue to exist,” they note. But that doesn’t mean the change will be for the better — nor that citizens will have a decisive say in shaping the day ahead.
from within the system or for a new form of authoritarian rule to emerge. Even violent internal conflict between factions is not ruled out.
In a time of deep turmoil and insecurity, Iranians may be primarily focused on survival. As one analyst observes: “People are trying to figure out what’s coming. For now, they will prioritize their own survival.”
