US Goals in Iran: Will Military Strikes Topple the Regime?

By Ahmet Taş | Wise News Press

WASHINGTON, USA — Following the announcement of "preemptive strikes" by Israel against Iran on Saturday morning, U.S. President Donald Trump declared the start of "large-scale operations" aimed at neutralizing the Iranian regime's nuclear and military capabilities.

While Trump framed the mission as a defense of the American people against "imminent threats," international security experts are questioning whether a purely aerial campaign can achieve Washington's ambitious goals. Experts speaking to DW analyzed the strategic objectives of the operation, ranging from nuclear disarmament to the potential for a total regime collapse in Tehran.

The First Objective: Disabling Nuclear Ambitions

President Trump has vowed that the U.S. will never allow Iran to obtain a nuclear weapon, claiming in his announcement that major nuclear sites were being targeted for total destruction. However, regional experts remain skeptical about the permanence of such strikes. Marcus Schneider, a Middle East expert at the Friedrich Ebert Foundation, argued that the nuclear issue might be a "pretext" for a broader conflict.

"If Iran possesses the expertise for centrifuge production and uranium enrichment, you cannot eliminate that with an air force," Schneider noted, suggesting that while strikes may set the program back, they cannot bomb away technical knowledge. Meanwhile, security analyst Şahin Modarres emphasized that preventing a nuclear-armed Iran remains a non-negotiable strategic priority for both Washington and Tel Aviv.

Neutralizing the Ballistic Missile Threat

For many analysts, Iran’s ballistic missile program represents a more immediate conventional threat than its nuclear research. During the 12-day conflict in June 2025, Tehran demonstrated its ability to strike Israeli and U.S. regional assets with significant precision.

Modarres suggested that while production facilities and warehouses are vulnerable to aerial bombardment, eradicating the program is difficult because it is a "domestic industry." Schneider echoed this sentiment, pointing out that Iran has proven it can manufacture these systems independently. The strategic goal, therefore, may shift from total elimination to long-term degradation of Tehran's launch capacity.

Destruction of Naval Assets and Maritime Control

The third major goal involves the destruction of the Iranian Navy, particularly its ability to disrupt traffic in the Strait of Hormuz. Experts believe this is the most "achievable" military objective for the U.S. Navy.

Şahin Modarres cited the 1988 Operation Praying Mantis as a historical precedent for the U.S. inflicting heavy damage on Iranian naval forces. Sara Kermanian, a researcher at the University of Sussex, stated that while the U.S. can deliver a crushing blow to active naval vessels, Iran's fleet of small, fast-attack boats makes a "quick victory" in the Persian Gulf unlikely.

The Ultimate Question: Can the Regime Be Overthrown?

Perhaps the most controversial aspect of the operation is the push for regime change. President Trump explicitly called on the Iranian people to "take over your government" once the strikes conclude, signaling a hope for a popular uprising. However, experts warn that air power alone rarely topples entrenched regimes.

"The idea that Trump can do this solely with air power, believing the Iranian people will rise up during a war, seems quite fantastic," Schneider remarked. Analysts suggest that without ground troops, a "wounded but intact" state might respond with intensified domestic repression. Kermanian warned that if the regime survives the initial onslaught, it may militarize further, leading to a prolonged period of economic attrition and internal violence.

www.wisenewspress.com