The launch Saturday of a sustained joint U.S.–Israeli military campaign against Iran is not merely another Middle Eastern conflict or another limited exchange of force. It represents something far more consequential: a deliberate effort to end, once and for all, the destabilizing power of the Islamic Republic and the threats it has posed to the United States, its allies, and even its own people for nearly half a century.
This is not a symbolic strike. It is not a one-night operation designed to send a warning. It is a strategic campaign with sweeping goals: dismantling Iran’s nuclear ambitions, neutralizing its long-range ballistic missile capabilities, severing its operational links to terrorist proxies, and ultimately creating the conditions for regime change.
As Axios reporter Barak Ravid relayed from senior Israeli officials:
“The goal is to create all the conditions for the downfall of the Iranian regime. We are targeting the entire Iranian leadership — political and military — past, present, and future. Developments will also depend on the extent to which the Iranian people rise up.”
In a video message, President Donald Trump confirmed that imploding the regime is indeed the objective.
“The hour of your freedom is at hand.”
These words matter—not only for what they signal militarily, but for what they acknowledge politically and morally.
A War Long in the Making
For decades, the Islamic Republic of Iran has defined itself through hostility toward the United States and the West.
From the 1979 hostage crisis to the Beirut Marine barracks bombing in 1983, to Khobar Towers in 1996, and the killing of American soldiers through proxy militias during the Iraq War, Iran’s leadership has treated confrontation with America as foundational to its identity.
This has never been hidden. “Death to America” has not been rhetoric of the margins—it has been a slogan of the state.
Successive administrations responded with caution: sanctions, diplomacy, and limited military actions. Even forceful responses, such as those ordered by Ronald Reagan in 1988 or the targeted strike that eliminated Qasem Soleimani, were designed to deter—not transform.
This moment is different.
The current campaign moves beyond deterrence. It acknowledges a reality many policymakers avoided: Iran’s nuclear and missile programs are not the root problem but the instruments of a regime ideologically committed to confrontation.
As Trump put it plainly, “The lives of courageous American heroes may be lost… but we are doing this for the future, and it is a noble mission.”
The Strategic Case for Action
The strategic rationale behind the campaign is compelling.
Iran’s nuclear program has long represented a looming danger—not just to Israel, but to regional stability and global security. A nuclear-armed Iran would embolden its proxy network, deter opposition from its neighbors, and potentially trigger a regional arms race.
At the same time, Iran’s ballistic missile program has given it the ability to threaten U.S. forces and allies across vast distances.
And then there are the proxies.
Groups like Hezbollah, Hamas, and the Houthis in Yemen have functioned as extensions of Iranian power—destabilizing Lebanon, threatening Israel, attacking Gulf states, and targeting international shipping.
Removing the regime’s ability to fund, arm, and direct these actors would dramatically reshape the Middle East.
Even if the regime does not collapse immediately, the destruction of its strategic tools would shatter its image as the region’s dominant power.
The Moral Dimension
Beyond strategy lies a moral argument that cannot be ignored.
In his address to the Iranian people, Trump said:
“For many years, you have asked for America’s help, but you never got it. No president was willing to do what I am willing to do tonight… America is backing you with overwhelming strength and devastating force. Now is the time to seize control of your destiny.”
This is not a call for occupation. It is not a promise of nation-building.
It is an appeal for liberation.
The campaign’s design reflects that distinction: sustained air operations rather than ground invasion, with an explicit expectation that Iran’s future must ultimately be determined by its own people.
Early indications suggest that some Iranians see the moment as hopeful. One Iranian doctor quoted by The Wall Street Journal described being “cautiously hopeful,” saying:
“There was no other way… People on the street smile at each other: Can you believe it? They show how excited they are.”
The fog of war makes sweeping conclusions premature—but the possibility that this campaign aligns with internal aspirations for change should not be dismissed.
A New Kind of U.S. Military Posture
Historically, American uses of force in the region have fallen into two categories: short punitive strikes or large-scale invasions.
This campaign fits neither.
It acknowledges that decisive action does not require occupation.
Trump himself underscored this distinction:
“My administration has taken every possible step to minimize the risk to U.S. personnel… Even so… the Iranian regime seeks to kill.”
The risks are real. Casualties are possible. Retaliation has already begun, with missile launches and drone attacks targeting U.S. assets.
But the strategy is calibrated: weaken the regime decisively without repeating the prolonged ground wars of Iraq or Afghanistan.
Regional Implications
The impact of this campaign extends far beyond Iran.
For decades, Iran has functioned as the central axis of instability in the Middle East. Its influence has shaped conflicts in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Yemen.
If that influence is diminished:
Lebanon’s government may feel empowered to confront Hezbollah.
Iraqi politics could shift away from militia dominance.
Gulf states would face reduced missile and drone threats.
Israel’s strategic environment would fundamentally improve.
There is also a diplomatic horizon.
The weakening of Iran could create conditions for expanding agreements like the Abraham Accords, bringing Israel and Arab states into deeper alignment.
Such a shift would have seemed improbable only a decade ago.
The Global Signal
This campaign also sends a message beyond the Middle East.
It demonstrates that longstanding aggression—even when normalized over decades—does not grant immunity.
It underscores that the United States remains capable of coordinated, large-scale action alongside allies.
And it highlights a reality often obscured in geopolitical rhetoric: in moments of crisis, rival powers such as Russia and China are limited in their ability to project influence into the Middle East.
As events unfold, it is the United States—not Tehran’s partners—that will shape the post-conflict diplomatic landscape.
Uncertainty and Resolve
None of this guarantees immediate success.
The regime’s fate is uncertain. Its leadership—including Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei—faces an existential threat and will respond accordingly.
Collapse could come quickly—or take years.
But even if the regime survives in weakened form, its aura of inevitability will have been broken.
Its ability to intimidate neighbors, fund proxies, and pursue strategic dominance will be diminished.
And its people will have seen, perhaps for the first time in decades, that the system surrounding them is not immovable.
A Defining Gamble
There is no denying the scale of the decision.
By launching a sustained campaign rather than a limited strike, Trump has embraced risk.
He has acknowledged that losses may occur.
He has also signaled a willingness to pursue a long-term transformation rather than a short-term message.
Whether one views this as bold or overdue, it marks a clear departure from past approaches that sought to manage Iran’s behavior rather than confront its underlying structure.
Conclusion: The Stakes of Success
If the campaign succeeds—even partially—the consequences could be profound.
A Middle East less dominated by Iranian coercion would be more stable.
Terror networks would be weaker.
Alliances could deepen.
And the Iranian people themselves might gain a chance—perhaps their best in generations—to determine their own future.
As Trump told them:
“When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take.”
That possibility—however uncertain—makes this moment historic.
Supporting this effort is not simply about backing military action. It is about recognizing the scale of the challenge posed by the Iranian regime and the potential opportunity that now exists to reshape a region long defined by its shadow.
The risks are real.
