A war between the United States, alongside Israel, and Iran has entered its second week, more than two decades after the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. US forces have launched strikes against nearly 2,000 targets in Iran, while Iran has retaliated with missile and drone attacks targeting Israel and Gulf neighbors.
What is Washington’s Endgame?
US forces have eliminated several top Iranian officials since the war began, including then-Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei in Tehran. Subsequent attacks have targeted nuclear facilities, civilian areas, and critical infrastructure such as oil refineries and a desalination plant.
Iran has responded by launching hundreds of missiles and thousands of drones, aiming at military bases used by the US, energy infrastructure, US embassies, and civilian areas.
More than 1,200 Iranians have been killed in the conflict, including over 160 children when a school was bombed. Seven American soldiers have also died. Analysts note that the Trump administration has not clearly articulated how it intends to end the war.
Regime Change — by Making the Iranian Establishment Collapse
The attacks began with the killing of Khamenei, who had led Iran as supreme leader for 37 years and previously served as the country’s president. While the Trump administration has not explicitly called for “regime change,” experts believe its actions suggest an attempt to cause the collapse of the current Iranian establishment.
“The objective of the strikes was instant capitulation of the regime and a popular uprising,” said Mustafa Hyder Sayed, executive director of the Pakistan-China Institute.
Muhanad Seloom, assistant professor of international politics and security at the Doha Institute for Graduate Studies, said the approach assumed “that removing the head and enough of the body will cause the system to either collapse or become so weakened that whatever emerges cannot restore Iran’s pre-war posture.”
Despite the deaths of senior military commanders and leaders, there is little evidence of significant fractures within Iran’s institutions. On Sunday, Iran announced Khamenei’s successor as supreme leader — his 56-year-old son, Mojtaba Khamenei.
“I believe it was a miscalculation on the part of Trump, because they didn’t expect and understand that Iran has the resilience and the staying power to fight a long, drawn-out war,” Sayed told Al Jazeera.
A Deal with the IRGC and Iranian Diplomats
From the start of Operation Epic Fury, Trump’s messaging has shifted between seeking a deal and threatening the destruction of Iran. He initially called on members of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) to surrender in exchange for immunity and later asked Iranian diplomats to switch sides.
The IRGC has been leading Iran’s counteroffensive and attacks on other Gulf countries, while Iranian diplomats have publicly rejected Trump’s offer, reaffirming their commitment to the Islamic Republic.
“The IRGC has just pledged full obedience to the new supreme leader,” Seloom pointed out. “Trump has designated them a terrorist organisation. Neither side has the political space for that conversation while the bombing continues.”
Eliminate Iran’s Military Capabilities
Trump and his team have repeatedly stated their goal of decimating Iran’s military capabilities — its ballistic missiles, manufacturing facilities, and navy. US and Israeli strikes have targeted Iranian naval assets, including a warship off the coast of Sri Lanka, as well as missile infrastructure. Both countries claim to now control Iranian airspace.
However, Seloom argued that military power alone cannot achieve the political outcome Washington may seek. “The military instrument has been authorised far beyond what the strategic objective can deliver. The US can destroy Iran’s hardware, but it cannot manufacture a political alternative from the air,” he said.
‘Take Over Your Government’ — but Let Trump Decide Who Leads It
Following the initial air strikes on February 28, Trump said: “To the great people of Iran, I say that the hour of freedom is at hand. When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take.” He also indicated a preference for someone inside Iran to lead a post-war government, downplaying the ambitions of Reza Pahlavi, the son of the former shah of Iran.
Trump has since opposed Mojtaba Khamenei as Iran’s new leader and demanded a direct say in choosing the leader. On March 6, he posted on his social media platform, demanding unconditional surrender: “There will be no deal with Iran except UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER!” He added that “GREAT & ACCEPTABLE Leader(s)” must be selected after the regime surrenders.
Tehran’s response has been consistent: no surrender, no negotiations under bombardment, and no externally imposed leadership. Mojtaba Khamenei’s selection as supreme leader is seen by experts as a direct rebuke to Washington’s ambitions.
Seloom believes Mojtaba’s elevation signals that the IRGC has consolidated its role as the true centre of power in Iran. “For US goals, this is deeply inconvenient. Washington wanted the succession to be a moment of internal fracture and potential opening. Instead, it has produced a rallying effect,” he said. “Trump called Mojtaba ‘unacceptable’ and Iran’s establishment chose him precisely because the enemy rejected him. If regime change was the goal, this appointment is evidence that it has already failed in its political dimension.”
Kurdish Invasion — or Not
The Trump administration has considered involving Kurdish forces in attacking the Iranian military, potentially sparking a broader uprising. The US maintains relationships with Kurdish groups in Iraq and has a military presence near Erbil. However, deploying Kurdish fighters inside Iran would be complex, analysts say.
Though Kurdish leaders have confirmed discussions with Trump, experts warn that such a move could escalate regional tensions. “Iranian Kurdish armed groups lack the capability, unity or logistics for anything resembling an invasion,” Seloom said. “And any serious Kurdish mobilisation would alarm Turkiye profoundly, creating a second crisis the US does not need while managing the first.”
Ground Invasion
Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi has stated that Iran is prepared for a potential US ground invasion. Trump and his administration have not ruled out deploying ground troops. However, Kamran Bokhari, senior director at the US-based New Lines Institute for Strategy and Policy, said Trump’s domestic political considerations and the experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan make a ground invasion unlikely.
“Ground troops are the most unlikely option given the president’s political imperatives and the failures in Iraq and Afghanistan,” he said.
What About Israel’s Objectives?
Israel has long viewed Iran as its biggest enemy. Mahjoob Zweiri, director of the Gulf Studies Center at Qatar University, said Israel sees the current war as part of a wider project to reshape the region following the Hamas attack of October 7, 2023.
“What Israel plans to do is essentially use October 7 as a pretext for what they call reshaping the Middle East, exactly as the United States did after 9/11,” he said. “Israel wants to eliminate, marginalise and defeat every potential player capable of challenging it, including Iran.”
What’s a Realistic Endgame for the US?
Amid the contrasting goals, Andreas Krieg, associate professor of security studies at King’s College London, told Al Jazeera that the most practical option for the US remains a coercive settlement rather than a ground war. “Washington could still be open to an understanding with elements of the regime, including IRGC-linked actors, if those actors were willing to protect the state while conceding enough on missiles, nuclear restrictions and regional behaviour to let Trump claim success,” he said.
Sayed of the Pakistan-China Institute said Trump’s pragmatism could ultimately shape the outcome. “Trump is quite a pragmatist. He would like to make a deal, declare that the US has achieved its goals, and conclude the war,” he said. “He can redefine victory, say Khamenei has been killed, the armed forces destroyed, and end it. A ground invasion would mean a political setback domestically and losing the midterms.”
Discover more from Archyworldys
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
