Contributor: What a U.S. victory would look like in the Iran war

Six days after the launch of Operation Epic Fury, President Trump went to Truth Social. announceIn the context of the ongoing joint American-Israeli military operation against the Islamic Republic of Iran: “There will be no agreement with Iran except unconditional surrender!” In the same post, the president appeared to equate such “unconditional surrender” with the “election of a GREAT and ACCEPTABLE Leader” who would lead Iran, enabling the country to come back “from the brink of destruction” and emerge “stronger than ever.”

Just three days after announcing his goal was “unconditional surrender,” Trump announced the end of the war in a speech in Doral, Fla., on March 9.Very soon.” One could be forgiven for experiencing something of a whiplash — especially since earlier the same day, Trump told Fox News: “not happy“With the appointment of Iran’s new religious leader Mojtaba Khamenei. In fact, when he demanded “unconditional surrender” the previous week, Trump had already called Khamenei younger.”unacceptable.”

What exactly is going on here?

Trump is a conservative nationalist, so general approach to foreign policy and its particular foreign policy.”tripsAccordingly, since Operation Epic Rage began, the Pentagon’s press briefings featuring Secretary of War Pete Hegseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dan Caine have repeatedly emphasized empirical metrics for measuring success, such as the sinking of Iranian navy ships, the shooting down of Iranian air force aircraft, and the destruction of Iranian ballistic missile silos and launch sites.

Trump hasn’t said it explicitly, but the Trump administration’s goal for Operation Epic Fury — and thus its definition of victory — seems clear enough: the neutralization of Iran as an active, ongoing threat to the United States and our interests. If nothing else, at least that’s the victory in the current campaign should do must be defined.

But this raises at least one pressing question, especially in the context of the rise to power of exiled Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi. Call to the Iranian people Preparing for the “decisive phase of our final struggle”: Where does “regime change”, the most controversial of foreign policy goals, fit into the puzzle?

At this point, it is undeniable that the most desired outcome of the conflict in Iran is wholesale regime change. The pursuit of regime change as an end in itself is now often disparaged in the wake of the failed neoconservative manias of the early part of this century. But it should also be axiomatic that there are some foreign regimes that act against America’s national interests, and there are some foreign regimes that act against America’s national interests. It is natural and logical that we want regimes of the second type to be heavily reformed or completely replaced, especially if the local people take the lead.

Perhaps more importantly: a despot like Ali Khamenei, who has been in power for 37 years, cannot be eliminated and destroyed, as the American and Israeli militaries did in the opening hours of the current operation. Negative Hope for full-scale regime change. All People of good will must hope for this outcome—that the Iranian people will rise like lions and throw off the yoke of tyranny once and for all, achieving in the process a long-sought victory for America’s national interests.

But it is entirely possible that full-scale regime change will not occur. The Iranian people witnessed the brutal shooting of tens of thousands of their citizens during anti-regime uprisings in late December and early January. They are an unarmed people facing the boots of a Nazi-like regime in the form of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and the Basij paramilitary group.

So all of this raises one final question: Is it possible to achieve victory in Operation Epic Fury and neutralize the Iranian regime as a threat to the United States and our interests? not Full-scale regime change in Tehran?

Theoretically, the answer is yes. Venezuela offers a model.

The current leader, Delcy Rodríguez, is a staunch Marxist-Leninist in the mold of his predecessors Hugo Chávez and Nicolás Maduro. However, Rodriguez has been in full cooperation with the United States since 2000. surprising January operation Removing Maduro because he has no real choice in the matter: He will stay in power, yes, but only on the condition of an “offer” made by Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio that Rodríguez “cannot refuse,” to quote Vito Corleone. Rodríguez has therefore been completely collaborative in areas such as America. oil extraction and re-establishment diplomatic relations with the United States.

Theoretically, a similar arrangement is possible for a destroyed, reformed regime in Tehran. Some experts predict that such an arrangement will characterize the regime in Iran a year or two from now. But in practice, there is always a thorny problem that has frustrated and confused Westerners for decades as they tried to reason with zealous Islamists: They are not afraid of death. A socialist like Delcy Rodríguez can, after all, reason; Perhaps Mojtaba is not an Islamist like Khamenei (or his successor).

At this particular point, the cleanest solution to the Iranian quagmire and the one that most clearly meets Trump’s “unconditional surrender” victory criterion is indeed full-scale regime change. This would certainly be the best outcome for neutralizing the Iranian threat and, accordingly, advancing America’s national interests. I’m not sure this will happen. But like many, I’m praying for this to happen quickly.

Josh Hammer’s latest book is “Israel and Civilization: The Fate of the Jewish Nation and the Fate of the West”.” This article was produced in collaboration with Creators Syndicate. X: @josh_hammer