Is Iran the new Iraq? Despite previous criticism of American interventions in the Middle East, Trump is betting on regime change in Iran

Iran is a country located in the Middle East. Formerly known as Persia, the country is home to 92 million people of different ethnicities, but mostly Persian. Its strategic location—the great plateau of Iran is a land bridge linking Central Asia, the Middle East, and the Caucasus—combined with its valuable natural resources such as oil, denote the country’s strategic importance. Politically, the country is organized as an Islamic theocracy led by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei from 1989 until his death in 2026 as a result of the most recent Israeli and American attacks on the country.

The recent attacks

Launched in the early hours of February 28, 2026, Operation Epic Fury marked the beginning of a coordinated military campaign between the United States and Israel. Unlike last year’s incursions, Epic Fury was an offensive designed to paralyze Iranian command and control. In addition to a decapitation strategy—in which not only Ayatollah Khamenei was targeted, but also other leaders of the regime—it also included an attempt to “blind” the country’s cyber environment with kinetic attacks against approximately 2,000 targets in Iranian territory. These kinetic attacks, which are a type of cyberattack, aimed to destabilize not only communication, command, and control centers, but also to paralyze the operation of various industrial machines and systems.

The central focus of the air raid was to neutralize the anti-access and area denial (A2/AD) bubbles that were intended to protect Iranian military and nuclear complexes. To this end, the US and Israel used a combination of stealth vectors, precision weapons, and kamikaze drones, operating in a coordinated manner.

At the heart of this offensive were fifth-generation F-35 Lightning II fighter jets and their Israeli variant, the F-35I Adir. These aircraft, characterized by their low radar observability, allowed infiltration into Iranian airspace without early detection by S-300 missile batteries. The main strategic advantage of these fighters lies in their ability to map Iranian mobile defenses in real time, transmitting critical data to the rest of the fleet without compromising their position. Complementing their stealth capabilities, EA-18G Growler electronic warfare aircraft worked to saturate enemy radars, using electromagnetic interference to “blind” Tehran’s control centers.

As for the physical destruction of strategic targets, the use of the B-2 Spirit bomber was decisive in striking underground nuclear facilities. These aircraft dropped the GBU-57 Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) bomb, weighing 14 tons and capable of penetrating dozens of meters of concrete and rock before detonating. The use of this specific weapon was intended to overcome Iran’s entrenchment strategy, which, as mentioned earlier, sought to protect its uranium centrifuges in deep locations such as Fordow and Natanz.

In addition to manned aviation, the operation also involved the use of kamikaze drones by the US, ironically, their own version of the Iranian Shahed-136 drone. Although they had already been used in January this year during Operation Absolute Resolve against Venezuela, some analysts point to the episode against Iran as the combat debut of LUCAS (Low-Cost Unmanned Combat Attack System). The US used these drones against refineries, Revolutionary Guard bases, and communications centers as force multipliers, overwhelming short-range defenses.

Photo: LUCAS drone obtained from reverse engineering of the Iranian Shahed-136 drone/Wikipedia

Something that has been observed since the Russian-Ukrainian war is the coordination between high technology and low-cost disposable systems. In the Iranian case, while stealth bombers focused on nuclear facilities, kamikaze drones were launched to identify and destroy radar batteries and mobile missile launchers. The use of these swarms allowed allied forces to exhaust Iran’s stocks of interceptor missiles, saturating its air defenses and opening safe corridors for heavier vectors.

In addition, precision was ensured by the use of the Tomahawk Block V missile, launched from submarines and ships off the coast, capable of changing its target in mid-flight based on intelligence data collected by the drones themselves flying over the conflict zone. On the ground, the operation highlighted the efficiency of the Precision Strike Missile (PrSM) coupled with the HIMARS system. This weaponry was instrumental in hitting Revolutionary Guard launch bases located in hard-to-reach areas in the interior of the Iranian plateau.

Bombing campaigns and regime change: lessons and limitations

To understand the strategic rationale behind Operation Epic Fury, it is essential to refer to Robert Pape’s classic analysis in his book Bombing to Win. According to the author, the success of air power in obtaining political concessions depends on the choice between strategies of punishment, decapitation, or denial. Pape argues that punishing civilian populations rarely achieves political objectives, as it tends to increase national cohesion against the aggressor. In the Iranian context, the 2026 attacks appear to have been designed according to the logic of denial, seeking to convince the regime that it no longer has the material means to pursue its nuclear program or maintain its regional hegemony, regardless of its political will.

However, the operation also relied on a decapitation strategy, directly targeting Ayatollah Khamenei and the military high command. Pape warns that decapitating leaders in theocratic or highly ideological regimes can be counterproductive, as the resulting power vacuum often leads to chaos or the rise of even more radical figures, rather than an organized surrender. In the present case, the deaths of Khamenei and leaders such as Pakpour and Ahmadinejad removed the interlocutors capable of negotiating a cessation of hostilities, placing Iran in a state of paralysis that could evolve into fragmented and prolonged resistance, making it difficult to achieve the definitive political victory sought by Washington.

Furthermore, the effectiveness of denial coercion is tested by the resilience of Iran’s underground infrastructure. Although the GBU-57 caused severe damage, Pape’s theory suggests that as long as the defender believes it can retain a minimal fraction of its retaliatory capability or its primary objective—in this case, nuclear technical knowledge—coercion will fail to produce a change in behavior. Thus, the US military buildup in the Middle East, the largest since 2003, while technically flawless from a tactical standpoint, faces the theoretical challenge of translating material destruction into regional stability. As Pape notes, air power is a tool of force, but it is rarely a stand-alone political solution to conflicts rooted in deep-seated security dilemmas and national identities. Moreover, there is no precedent for regime change achieved solely through air strikes. In Iraq in 2003, an invasion was necessary, something Trump does not seem willing to do.

Brief history of Iran-U.S. relations

Image: Freepik

Before the Islamic revolution of 1979, the US and Iran were allies. In fact, the US and the UK profited from their relations with Iran, as the Anglo-Persian Oil Company was the first company to explore oil reserves in the Middle East until its demise in 1954. This was because in 1951 Iran nationalized its oil—a decision that displeased the British and led them to the International Court of Justice. In response, Iran claimed that the ICJ had no jurisdiction over the case, a view that the court ruled correct in July 1952. This was the turning point in the deterioration of Iran’s relations with the West.

From there, in 1953, Mossadegh, then Prime Minister of Iran, was deposed in a military coup orchestrated by the CIA and MI6, the British intelligence service. Mossadegh had been democratically elected and had plans to modernize the Iranian economy using profits from oil exploration. However, the US and the UK had other plans for Iranian oil, as confirmed by documents declassified by the US in 2013, when the CIA admitted its involvement. Operation Ajax involved financing protests and bribing Iranian politicians and military personnel. Its goal was to install a pro-Western government in Iran, a plan that proved successful only for a brief period.

After Mossadegh’s fall, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi ruled Iran for 26 years until he was overthrown by the Islamic revolution in 1979. It is important to note that he had already been ruling the country since 1941, when his father was deposed during World War II. During his reign, a series of reforms known as the White Revolution took place with the aim of reforming Iran economically and socially.

In a nutshell, the Iranian Revolution of 1979 transformed a previously pro-Western monarchical government into a Shiite Islamic Republic. The revolutionary effort sought, especially in the 1980s, to Islamize society through laws and political institutions. In addition, shortly after the Revolution, the country fought a war against Iraq, which resulted in nearly one million deaths and almost no change in the borders between the countries. It is also important to note that the Revolution represented a major loss for the US, which lost an ally in the region.

Jumping to the present, what we see now is the opposite of what Trump has promised – no new wars. He has previously condemned the US interventions on the Middle East, such as Iraq and Libya. For the American president, it was a mistake to meddle in these countries – even though they were being governed by dictators who violated human rights. In his words, these countries are now much worse than they were before. However, he seems to have changed his mind when the subject is Iran. Trump has openly invited the citizens of Iran to seize the opportunity and overthrow the regime – a gamble that could have unforeseen outcomes.

The nuclear issue

Historically, possession of nuclear weapons gives a state nuclear deterrence, that is, the practice of discouraging or restricting an enemy from taking unwanted action, such as an armed attack or the threat of an attack. However, precisely because of the high risk involved with such weapons, their proliferation is widely opposed by the international community, especially in regions where there are major disputes, such as the Middle East. Israel is the only country in the region that actually possesses nuclear weapons, although it does not officially declare its possession of this arsenal, as we discussed in the column on Israel’s policy of nuclear opacity.

Iran, in turn, is a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), but has been accused several times of violating it in order to achieve nuclear weapons, since the treaty allows the use of technology only for peaceful purposes. Like Brazil, Iran has enriched uranium, a material that has dual use, that is, it can be used for peaceful or weapons purposes. As a member of the NPT, Iran must submit to inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) so that it can verify that the enrichment of radioactive material is within the permitted limits. However, the IAEA claims that since at least 2019, Iran has not been fully cooperating with the agency’s inspectors. Furthermore, after the attacks on its nuclear facilities in June 2025, Iran refused to allow further inspections of the bombed sites, accusing the agency of providing classified information to Israel.

In this context, negotiations had been taking place in recent weeks between Iran and the United States with the aim of avoiding conflict, but these were interrupted by the recent attacks that began on February 28, 2026. Under the justification of preventing its nuclear ambitions, the attacks mark another turning point in the region, as this is the largest US military buildup in the Middle East since the Iraq war in 2003. This could bring even more instability to the region, given Iran’s strategic location linking Central Asia, the Middle East, and the Caucasus. In any case, this is not the first time Iran has been attacked under the pretext of stopping or delaying its nuclear program.

On April 11, 2021, shortly after announcing its newest centrifuges, the Iranian government reported that it had been the target of an attack, which it considered an act of “nuclear terrorism.” At the time, the nuclear facility in Natanz was sabotaged by a cyberattack believed to have come from the Israeli government, led by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, increasing tension between the two countries. According to The Jerusalem Post, the attack was carried out using an explosive device that was smuggled into the facility and detonated remotely. The resulting blackout targeted the electrical substation located more than 50 meters below ground, damaging several machines used for refining nuclear material, including “thousands of centrifuges” essential for uranium processing, according to Iranian officials.

On June 13, 2025, Israel attacked Iran as part of Operation Rising Lion. In a coordinated attack, Israel activated a base of explosive drones that, according to Mossad, had been established in Iran months earlier. The drones struck air defense radars and key communication points, followed by an air strike by 200 Israeli aircraft on various targets, including nuclear facilities and military leaders in the country. The targets were successfully hit, and Iran’s nuclear program suffered heavy losses. On June 21 of the same year, at Israel’s request, the US conducted air strikes on the Iranian nuclear facilities at Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan. The attacks represented a milestone in Iran-US relations, but also had broader repercussions on the international scene as a whole. This is because Donald Trump, who had stated that he had no interest in starting new wars, decided to attack the country at Israel’s request—just as we are seeing now.

IAEA Director General Rafael Mariano Grossi criticized the attacks due to the risk of contamination they pose. The director had also previously criticized Russian attacks on the Zaporizhia nuclear power plant, now under Russian control, in the context of the war in Ukraine. “As I have repeatedly stated—before and during the conflict—nuclear facilities should never be attacked due to the very real risk of a serious radiological accident,” Grossi said. However, he said there was no evidence of environmental or population risks after the attacks, as the nuclear reactors were not hit.

At the time, US President Donald Trump went so far as to declare that Iran’s nuclear program had been “obliterated.” However, when commenting on the attacks of February 28, 2026, he again invoked the nuclear justification and accused Iran of being the largest financier of terrorism on Earth. “They rejected all attempts to abandon their nuclear ambitions,” said the US president. For Trump, the attack on Iran is a way to dismantle its proxies, such as Hamas and the Houthis, and, above all, a way to ensure that the regime never gains possession of nuclear weapons. “They will never have a nuclear weapon,” declared the American leader.

In the aforementioned episodes, as well as in several others, Iran maintained its denial regarding the possible military purposes of its nuclear technology. The country claims to use the technology only for civilian and energy purposes, which is permitted by the IAEA. Iran also argues that its centrifuges were located underground not to hide the project, but to protect them from ground and air military attacks, given the history of attacks in the past.

In July 2020, the Natanz facility was attacked with bombs hidden inside a table; in 2010, at the same location, the Stuxnet virus damaged 1,000 Iranian centrifuges, rendering them unusable. In addition, according to The Jerusalem Post, the former head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (AEOI) survived an assassination attempt in 2010 with bombs placed on the side of his car, while two nuclear scientists, Majid Shahriari and Mohsen Fakhrizadeh, were killed in similar attacks (the former died on the same day as the attempt on the former head of the AEOI; the latter, Iran’s leading nuclear scientist, in an assassination attributed to Israel in 2020).

Three days after the 2021 attack, Iran announced that it would rebuild its electrical wiring and increase uranium enrichment from 20% to 60%—a level prohibited by the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), a nuclear agreement reached in 2015 between Iran and other world powers. This level of enrichment is close to that required to build a nuclear bomb. Added to this is the fact that in 2018, during President Donald Trump’s first term, the US withdrew from the JCPOA, paving the way for Iran to breach it. During Joe Biden’s administration, there were attempts to resume the agreement, but these were unsuccessful due to a lack of trust between the parties.

In any case, the main reason that leads a country to seek to develop its own nuclear weapons, even in the face of high economic and especially political costs, is the perception of threat. If a country believes that it can only defend itself from a threat with nuclear weapons or that it can only ensure the survival of its regime with nuclear weapons, it is much more likely to remain resolute in that goal. Therefore, just as it is unlikely that air strikes alone can guarantee regime change, it is difficult for them to make Iran more cooperative regarding its nuclear program.

By Cinthya Araújo e Maria Mont Serrat