Prof John Mearsheimer\u00b2 argues that U.S. objectives in Iran\u2014ending nuclear enrichment, stopping ballistic missile development, and halting support for groups like Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis\u2014cannot be achieved without regime change.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
They say true success would require:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Removing the current Iranian leadership.Installing a new regime aligned with U.S. and Israeli interests.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
However, they contend there is no coherent strategy to accomplish this.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
They cite President Trump\u2019s remarks suggesting that many potential replacement leaders are dead and that even if regime change succeeds, a new leadership could be just as hostile as the current one.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
They interpret this as evidence of strategic confusion and a lack of planning for post-regime outcomes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Senator Lindsey Graham is portrayed as strongly pro-war and dismissive of skepticism, emphasizing the need to eliminate Iran\u2019s missile and nuclear capabilities and its support for regional militant groups. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
But the analyst argues that destroying military assets alone won\u2019t produce lasting strategic success if the regime remains intact.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
They compare the situation to the Vietnam War\u2014where the U.S. won battles but lost strategically\u2014to stress that tactical victories (like air superiority) don\u2019t automatically lead to favorable political outcomes.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Regarding air power, they note that even overwhelming aerial dominance, as seen in the Gulf War, does not guarantee decisive results on the ground or regime collapse. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The central concern remains: without a clear, viable plan for regime change and what follows, military success may not translate into long-term strategic victory.<\/p>\n\n\n\n