The war launched against Iran by the United States together with Israel lacks clear objectives: it is not known if it seeks to destroy the Iranian nuclear capacity and its missilesand regime change or stop the support activities of the ayatollahs to the militias. This is what the Democratic senator denounces Richard Blumenthal after having been in a secret closed-door briefing with the Pentagon this week. “I’m more afraid than ever that we’ll end up sending soldiers into the field,” Blumenthal said. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer, who was also at the meeting, says he fears that the operation will become a “mission creep”a drift that implies a progressive and unforeseen expansion of military objectives.
The bombings were precipitated last Saturday because it had been detected that the supreme leader of the Iranian theocracy, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was going to meet with part of the Government, according to information transmitted to different media by sources from the White House, the Pentagon and the Israeli Army. This acceleration of events may partly explain the lack of clarity in the Trump Administration’s public messages. A few days they assure that the objective is to end the nuclear program (even though the president already said last June that it had been completely destroyed in the 12 Day War). Other days, they said that the plan is weaken the regime to give the Iranians the opportunity to rise up against their Government. A historic opportunity to overthrow the ayatollahs, in words Donald Trump. Later, they have begun to not rule out sending “boots on the ground” and a ground invasion; a new war of conquest by the United States in the Middle East, just the opposite of what Trump promised during the election campaign.
Tehran, March 6, 2026. Smoke and fire after bombings in a central area of the Iranian capital. New attacks rocked Iran and Lebanon as Israel promised to open a new phase of the war in the Middle East. / ATTA KENARE / AFP
“It is clear that the United States and Israel have demonstrated impressive military superiority. The question is whether they can – or even if they have a plan to – translate that superiority into a diplomatic victory,” Boaz Atzili, professor of Foreign Policy and Global Security at the American University of Washington, DC, analyzes for EL PERIÓDICO.
The expert breaks down the four possible scenarios, in his opinion:
Victoria from the United States and Israel: The Iranian regime collapses due to the magnitude of external bombings and an internal popular insurrection. A new liberal-democratic provisional government is established, which agrees to dismantle the nuclear program and the regional network of allied groups in exchange for the lifting of sanctions and the reintegration of Iran into the international community. “It is a quite unlikely scenario, given the military strength of the Iranian regime, which will hardly fall with air strikes alone,” he considers.
Partial defeat of the United States and Israel: Despite the enormous damage suffered, the Iranian regime manages to survive and also prevent a popular uprising, resorting to repression and taking advantage of the increase in civilian casualties caused by the bombings. Although its ammunition stockpile is dwindling, Iran manages to hit some important American targets, and growing discontent in the United States leads Trump to accept a compromise on the nuclear issue, proclaim a victory and also force Israel to stop bombing. “It doesn’t seem very likely in the short term either,” he predicts.
Wear: The war continues and the Iranian regime is greatly weakened, but it does not collapse. The conflict leads to a long asymmetric war of attrition. As Iran’s ballistic missiles run out, Tehran is increasingly resorting to terrorist tactics in the Middle East, the United States and Europe. But neither side is willing to end the war. “This has more signs of happening,” he points out.
Limited results: A new leadership in Iran continues to rely on the Revolutionary Guard and in the clergy, but is willing to give up the nuclear program in exchange for Trump ending the war. Trump, under pressure at home, signs the agreement. Iran abandons the nuclear route, but maintains its determination to preserve its position of power in the Middle East by rebuilding its missile program and its allied militias in Iraq, Lebanon and Yemen. Israel then starts new wars every few years to degrade those Iranian capabilities. “This is also a quite probable scenario,” concludes the expert.
Tehran, January 23, 2024. Iranian-made drones, during a ceremony in the Iranian capital. A large number of nationally manufactured unmanned aircraft were incorporated into Army combat units in different parts of the country. / Iranian Army/Zuma Press/dpa / Iranian Army/Zuma Press/dpa
Over the past 40 years, the Iranian regime has devoted great efforts to becoming deeply rooted in the state and society at multiple levels. Even if the ayatollahs fall, the Revolutionary Guard, the Army and the popular militias are behind them Basij. That is, in addition to the theocracy, Iran has a strong military regime component. There are hundreds of thousands of members “willing to fight to the death and to go to extremes to protect the regime,” says Kani Sathasivam, professor of International Relations at Salem State University in Massachusetts (United States).
Entrenchment of the regime in Iran
“All scenarios are possible. However, I believe that the alternatives of civil war and regime collapse are much less likely,” he says. For him, the most plausible outcomes are a entrenchment of the regime or one controlled transition of the regime.
“Ultimately, the outcome will depend entirely on how far ordinary Iranians are willing to go to overthrow the regime,” Sathasivam said. “The only way this would fall is if millions of Iranians were willing to sacrifice their lives for change. And, despite what we saw in Iran a few weeks ago, I am not convinced that that level of determination to overthrow the regime exists in Iranian society today. Rather, even the massive protests of a few weeks ago I attribute above all to a form of relief in the face of poor socioeconomic conditions, and not so much to a clear desire to end the regime.”
Qom, March 5, 2026. Attendees at the funeral of people killed in the US and Israeli war against Iran. Washington and Tel Aviv launched attacks against Iran on February 28, in which the Iranian supreme leader and senior military commanders were killed, triggering Iranian retaliation against Israel and various points in the Gulf. / MEHDI ALAVI / AFP
One of the keys to resolving the conflict will be its duration. There is already information that defensive missiles (such as the Patriots) may be scarce for the United States to defend its forces in the area, the attacked Gulf countries and Israel.
“The Iranian regime retains a strong coercive capacity, although it is largely unpopular, and has institutionalized mechanisms for the transfer of power,” EL PERIÓDICO points out. Jeannie Sowersprofessor of Political Science and International Affairs at the University of New Hampshire (United States). “The Trump Administration clearly has very little interest in truly engaging in a ‘regime change’ process. It has limited itself to issuing rhetorical calls for the Iranians to somehow organize alternatives in the middle of a war.”
The examples of Iraq and Afghanistan
If the United States ends up sending ground troops, that would activate anti-war sentiment in the country’s public opinion, especially among the bases of the Trumpist MAGA movement, which valued his promise not to engage in military adventures. It was one of the bases of America First.
“Striking is the complete absence of high-level reflection on the results of US interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan, both of which became protracted conflicts that imposed enormous humanitarian and economic costs on local populations,” says Sowers.
Both were very costly wars. Like this one from Iran. The aircraft carriers and hundreds of aircraft that fire very expensive missiles must be brought to the area and maintained. It is estimated that each day of conflict costs around 1 billion dollars to the United States, according to the Pentagon itself. Such spending in the midst of a big tax cut threatens to skyrocket the federal deficit.
Baghdad, March 5, 2026. An attendee holds a portrait of the dead Iranian supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, during the funeral procession of members of the Hezbollah Brigades (Kataeb Hezbollah), a pro-Iran Iraqi militia, killed in an attack the previous day. The group, backed by Tehran, said one of its commanders was killed in a bombing in southern Iraq. / AHMAD AL-RUBAYE / AFP
During his first term, Donald Trump unilaterally withdrew the United States from the Barack Obama-era Iran nuclear deal, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. This limited Iranian nuclear ambitions in exchange for partial relief from sanctions. This second Trump Administration was maintaining active negotiations with Iran for another nuclear deal while preparing for war.
A war for which the Trump Administration has neither articulated clear objectives nor provided Congress with credible information demonstrating that Iran represented an imminent threat that justified a preventive war, according to the opposition. All scenarios therefore remain open.
Subscribe to continue reading
