The Conflict with Iran: Four Initial Takeaways Are Already Clear

As the US-Israel military operation against Iran’s clerical regime continues, it is too early to predict if the stated objective of regime change will prove achievable, or if the Islamic Republic will instead endure. Yet even amid the fog of war, four initial takeaways stand out. 

1. A Narrow Opening for Change in Iran 

The government in Tehran has maintained its grip on power despite long-term sanctions imposed by the world’s leading economic powers, last year’s US-Israel campaign against Iranian nuclear facilities, and widespread popular dissatisfaction erupting into regular popular protests. The regime’s unity and willingness to use widespread lethal force against its own population has underpinned its resilience, but the successful targeting of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and senior clerical and military leaders could disrupt a seemingly unshakeable system. For now, replacement of the clerics and their security forces with a democratic government in Iran appears improbable. More likely is regime alteration, with a badly mauled but still functioning Islamic Republic restraining its behavior at home and abroad as the price for ending the ongoing conflict. That alone would represent an incremental improvement for Iranians and the Middle East. To be sure, sharply negative outcomes are also possible. They range from the ascendance of a more ideologically extreme leader in Tehran to chaotic regime collapse that radiates instability beyond Iran’s borders. 

2. Potential Upside for Global Order 

From an international legal perspective, the current military operation, which has occurred without UN Security Council endorsement, or even debate, further undermines the rules-based international order. Yet a more expansive definition of that order—one that prohibits governments from promoting terror with impunity or controlling their neighbors through proxy militias—puts the operation in a different light. Even if aspirations for regime change go unrealized, a deterred and diminished government in Tehran would yield a net gain for regional stability. Iran’s widening attacks against the Gulf states may also strengthen regional order by encouraging them to overlook past disputes and forge a new solidarity. There are potential benefits to global order as well. Since the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Iran has functioned as a key part of Russia’s war machine by providing drone components and production expertise. That may now end. The operation against Iran is also unlikely to embolden Russia or China. The two countries may condemn the United States and Israel for violating international law, but their calculus of restraint versus aggression reflects assessments of raw power and the resolve of the United States and its allies. 

3. An Emerging Standard for U.S. Allies 

Whatever the outcome, the strikes against Iran will elevate Washington’s expectations of allies in other potential conflicts. The National Defense Strategy (NDS) released in January prioritizes cooperation with allies that “are spending as they need to and visibly doing more against threats in the regions, with critical but limited U.S. support”. The NDS explicitly cites Israel as a “model ally”. The level of coordination, interoperability, and battlefield contributions that Israel is delivering during the current Middle East conflict will further reinforce its benchmark status within the Trump administration. US allies worldwide, and particularly those in Europe given Washington’s scrutiny of NATO defense spending, should anticipate being held to the standard that Israel has set.  

4. A Trump Administration Strategy of Consolidation  

The operation against Iran illustrates a defining aspiration of the Trump administration’s foreign policy: consolidation. Under this approach, the United States seeks to reduce the number of conflicts and national security challenges that require its attention and resources. In Gaza, this was reflected in pressure on Israel and Hamas to agree to a ceasefire that neither party initially wanted. In Venezuela, consolidation has taken the form of capturing Nicolás Maduro and compelling his de facto successor to align Caracas with US interests and move away from cooperation with extra-regional competitors. The Trump administration’s continued pursuit of a negotiated end to Russia’s war against Ukraine also reflects the logic of consolidation. Regarding Iran, the United States has for decades dedicated significant diplomatic attention and military resources to managing the challenges that the Islamic Republic’s ballistic missile capabilities, nuclear program, and regional proxy networks pose. Short of regime change, a severely weakened and inward-focused Tehran would, in the short-to-medium term, enable the United States to limit its Middle East commitments.