By Gurjeet Singh

On February 28, 2026, the United States and Israel launched multiple airstrikes against Iran. According to The Times of Israel, President Donald Trump stated the strikes were intended to achieve regime change.

This came against a backdrop of widespread protests in Iran, reported by The Guardian (UK), sparked by soaring prices. The demonstrations were met with a brutal crackdown, leaving over 36,500 dead and accompanied by an internet blackout.

CBS News quoted Trump warning of “very strong action” if Iran executed detained anti-government protesters, assuring the Iranian people that “help is on its way.”

In February 2026, the U.S. and Iran entered nuclear negotiations mediated by the Omani Foreign Minister Badr Bin Hamad Al Busaidi. According to TwinCities Pioneer Press, the U.S. demanded zero uranium enrichment, while Iranian negotiators insisted on their “inalienable right” to enrichment. On February 20, Trump warned Iran that failure to reach a deal would result in “really bad things.”

A deadline of 10–15 days was set. On February 25, indirect talks were held in Oman. Bloomberg reported U.S. negotiators left disappointed, while Iranian and Omani officials expressed optimism. Al Busaidi later posted on X that there had been “significant progress.”

Meanwhile, the U.S. had been steadily increasing its military presence in the Middle East since late January. CNN reported that by January 30, the USS Abraham Lincoln carrier strike group, guided missile destroyers, and fighter jets were deployed to the region.

Satellite imagery from Planet Labs on January 25 showed U.S. air defence systems—including THAAD and Patriot missile batteries—positioned at Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar. Trump repeatedly threatened military action, warning that if Iran refused a deal, “the next attack will be far worse” than the previous strike on its nuclear facilities in June 2025.

Goals of the Military Intervention

On February 28, 2026, the United States launched Operation Epic Fury against Iran. According to USA Today, President Trump described the strike as necessary to eliminate “imminent threats,” dismantle Iran’s missile capabilities, prevent nuclear development, and support regime change. The Israeli Defence Ministry stated the strike was prompted by intelligence of an “immediate” missile and drone attack from Iran.

U.S. officials emphasised that the operation aimed to cripple Iran’s ballistic missile program and block nuclear ambitions. Al Arabiya English reported that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu framed the joint U.S.-Israeli action as removing an existential threat. He declared the attack would “create conditions for the brave Iranian people to take their destiny in their own hands” and urged Iranians to overthrow the regime.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt outlined four objectives of the intervention:

1. Destroy Iran’s ballistic missiles
2. Neutralise its navy
3. Stop “terrorist proxies” from destabilising the region
4. Ensure Iran never acquires nuclear weapons

Foreign policy analyst Jack Clayton noted that Israel has long sought the fall of the Islamic Republic, stressing that such a goal is impossible without U.S. involvement—potentially including ground forces. Trump himself urged Iranian opposition groups to “take over your government” once the strikes concluded.

U.S. Military Interventions for Regime Change

The U.S. record on regime-change interventions has been mixed. Its most recent attempt before Iran was in Venezuela. Historically, as documented by Wikipedia’s “United States Involvement in Regime Change”, the U.S. has engaged in covert and overt efforts to topple governments since the 19th century. In the 21st century, several interventions have produced unintended consequences such as instability, ethnic violence, and civil conflict (TRT World).

Iraq (2003)

The U.S. invaded Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein, citing weapons of mass destruction. The campaign began with the “Shock and Awe” bombing, followed by a ground invasion from Kuwait. Coalition forces toppled Saddam’s regime, symbolised by the fall of his statue in Baghdad. However, the aftermath saw looting, lawlessness, sectarian violence, and eventually the rise of Daesh (ISIS).

The Bush administration attempted to stabilise Iraq with the 2007 “Surge,” deploying 30,000 additional troops. While it temporarily reduced violence, deep sectarian divisions remained unresolved. The U.S. withdrew under President Obama, after which ISIS expanded its influence.

Libya (2011)

During the Arab Spring, Libya erupted in protests against Muammar Gaddafi. NATO imposed a no-fly zone, and Gaddafi was eventually killed. Yet, as DW News reports, Libya is fractured into rival administrations, with ongoing civil conflict and instability. More than a decade later, the country remains divided and unstable.

Operation Epic Fury reflects a familiar U.S. pattern: military intervention framed as eliminating threats and enabling regime change. Past cases in Iraq and Libya show that while regimes were toppled, the aftermath often brought instability, sectarian violence, and power vacuums. Whether Iran follows a similar trajectory remains uncertain, but history suggests regime-change operations rarely deliver the intended stability.

REGIME CHANGE IN IRAN

According to Foreign Affairs (“What It Will Take to Change the Regime in Iran” by Benham Ben Talenlu), the Iranian regime is at its weakest point since its founding in 1979. In June 2025, U.S. and Israeli strikes destroyed much of Iran’s uranium enrichment capacity and several of its air defence systems.

Eckart Woertz, head of the German Institute of Global and Area Studies in Hamburg, cautions: “It’s extremely doubtful that it would be possible to bring about a regime change like that from the outside, with the push of a button.”

DW News highlights that regime change is highly contentious under international law, as it violates national sovereignty and often leads to instability and chaos due to power vacuums. Woertz further argues that successful regime change in Iran would require ground forces, noting:

• “I don’t see a massively strong rebel movement within Iran that could topple the current regime.”
• “While there was a successful regime change in Germany at the end of World War II, that required a ground invasion. Regime change has never happened with aerial bombardment alone, and I don’t think Iran will be an exception.”

Iran’s size and geography compound the challenge. With a population of about 92 million and terrain that is the most mountainous in the region, Iran is roughly 3.8 times larger than Iraq. This scale would require thousands of U.S. troops for a ground invasion. Yet, according to CNN polling, American voters—particularly Trump’s base—strongly oppose deploying ground forces, making such an invasion politically unlikely.

What lessons can be learned?

An aerial campaign alone will not bring regime change in Iran; it would require a large-scale ground invasion, which lacks domestic support in the U.S. The war goals of the U.S. and Israel remain unclear—sometimes framed as regime change, other times as destroying missile capabilities. As ABC News (Australia) noted in “What Trump’s Mixed Messages Really Reveal,” these shifting objectives create uncertainty.

Even if regime change were achieved, history shows it often leads to instability. In Iraq, sectarian violence and the rise of Daesh followed Saddam Hussein’s removal. In Libya, Gaddafi’s fall left the country fractured and unstable.

Given these precedents, the U.S. and Israel would be better advised to pursue a negotiated settlement with Iran. Rejoining the JCPOA—the nuclear deal signed in 2016 under President Obama but abandoned by Trump in 2018—could provide a framework for limiting Iran’s nuclear program while avoiding further chaos.

The JCPOA imposed strict limits on uranium enrichment in exchange for sanctions relief, ensuring Iran’s nuclear program remained peaceful. Reviving such an agreement may offer a more stable path forward than military intervention.

(C) TPA2026