“When we are finished, seize over your government. It will be yours to take.” These were the words President Trump addressed to the Iranian people following the start of “major combat operations” in Iran. The joint U.S.-Israeli operation – dubbed “Epic Fury” – struck hundreds of targets across Iran, including the compound of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei’s office and military facilities.
Despite the display of military capability, history suggests this campaign is unlikely to deliver the promised regime change. The goal, in effect, is to weaken the regime’s capabilities and hold on power. However, airpower alone has never toppled a government.
The Illusion of Airpower Regime Change
While airpower can degrade military capabilities and kill commanders, it cannot reorder domestic politics. The closest recent example often cited is Libya in 2011, but even there, the destruction of Muammar Gaddafi’s regime was not solely due to airpower. Indigenous rebel forces on the ground, organized and capable, exploited the pressure created by air strikes. Currently, there is no comparable force in Iran.
A study of thirty asymmetric interstate conflicts involving the United States from 1918 to 2003 shows coercion often fails when a weaker state’s survival is threatened, prompting resistance rather than capitulation. Regime change is the maximalist demand, and the Iranian government has every reason to believe its survival is at stake.
Constitutional Concerns and Congressional Response
Who Decides?
By Christopher Preble, Senior Fellow and Reimagining US Grand Strategy Program Director
President Trump initiated a war against Iran without congressional approval or public debate. This is unconstitutional, unwise, and a betrayal of his “America First” promise. The power to declare war was reserved for Congress.
While past Congresses have often allowed presidents to wage war, the brazenness of this decision is noteworthy. The American people do not seek another costly war in the Middle East, and the administration has not provided critical details about the scope of the threat.
Economic Repercussions and Cost of Living
The Cost-of-Living Test
By Emma Ashford, Senior Fellow
The administration’s attack on Iran raises concerns about increased fuel prices and worsening cost-of-living issues. Around 20 percent of global oil supplies transit the Strait of Hormuz, and Iran has threatened to close it. While oil markets have been resilient, a prolonged conflict could significantly impact the global economy.
Diplomacy and the Future of US Foreign Policy
A War That Kills Diplomacy
By Evan Cooper, Research Analyst
President Trump’s abandonment of diplomacy as an avenue to curtail Iran’s nuclear program has far-reaching consequences. The administration’s approach sends a message that regimes may be safer if they develop a nuclear program first, and adversaries will be less likely to engage in diplomacy with the United States.
Implications for South Korea
Impact on South Korea
By J. James Kim, Korea Program Director
The conflict could impact South Korea’s energy supply, as it imports almost all of its crude oil and natural gas from abroad, with a significant portion coming from the Middle East. South Korea maintains stockpiling facilities, but a prolonged conflict could still have a noticeable impact on its economy.
What do you think? Share your thoughts on the implications of this conflict in the comments below.
