No Regime Change, No Exit: The Iran War’s Reckoning Begins – OpEd

By Osama Al-Sharif

Almost two weeks after the US and Israel launched what they described as a preemptive strike against Iran — with the stated objective of regime change — the odds that this goal will be achieved anytime soon appear as remote as they did on Day 1. Yet as both sides dig in, trading blows in an increasingly senseless war of attrition, there are signs that President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu are quietly backing away from that stated objective.

On Monday, Trump said America’s goals may be “pretty well complete” and that the war could end soon. His remarks came as global stock markets tumbled and oil and gas prices soared, with Iran having effectively closed the strategic Strait of Hormuz — disrupting about 20 percent of global oil exports. Tehran has also struck energy facilities across most Gulf states, forcing Qatar to suspend gas production and prompting others to curtail output.

But later that same day, Trump told reporters that the US would continue striking Iran to destroy its ballistic missile capabilities. He also expressed dissatisfaction with the newly designated supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, implying he wanted a say in who leads Iran next. Earlier, Trump had indicated that any decision to end the war would be made mutually by himself and Netanyahu.

Iran’s response was swift and unequivocal. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps declared that only Iran would determine when the war ends. Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said diplomacy was no longer an option. IRGC forces continued firing missiles and drones at Israel and neighboring Gulf states.

By Tuesday, Trump’s advisers were reportedly urging him to devise an exit strategy — to end a war that remains deeply unpopular with the American public and is increasingly threatening Republican prospects in the November midterm elections. Some analysts believe Trump may declare victory, claiming the US has crippled Iran’s military and eliminated key figures in its leadership. But it is far from clear how Tehran would respond to such a gambit, particularly as Iran appears intent on raising the stakes and setting its own conditions for ending hostilities.

In hindsight, Trump appears to have miscalculated both Iran’s resolve and its capacity to absorb the initial shock, which was, by any measure, devastating. The attacks on Gulf neighbors have strained ties with US allies that never wanted this war. And it is now evident that Trump and Netanyahu entered it with fundamentally different objectives.

For Trump, the goal was to decapitate the regime, pave the way for a moderate successor and secure American interests in the oil-rich country. Netanyahu, having failed to achieve regime change, has appeared to shift toward destroying Iran’s infrastructure in the hope of fomenting internal chaos and division. Both leaders believed their aims would be achieved quickly and decisively. Both were wrong.

Iran’s resilience — despite heavy damage to its military and civilian infrastructure — has visibly stunned Washington and Tel Aviv. By internationalizing the conflict, Iran's hard-liners have deftly transferred pressure onto Arab and European capitals, as well as into the political and military decision-making centers of both Israel and the US.

Israel now finds itself fighting on two fronts: in southern Lebanon against a resurgent Hezbollah and against an Iranian leadership that, more than 10 days after its missile capabilities were supposedly neutralized, continues to strike the heart of Tel Aviv and Haifa. By Tuesday, Netanyahu appeared to be stepping back from his core war aim, suggesting that the end of Iran’s clerical regime depends on the Iranian people’s willingness to “throw off the yoke of tyranny.”

Trump should also be cautious about his continued alignment with Netanyahu. Reports indicate that Israel is striking civilian infrastructure — schools, hospitals, oil depots and police stations — in addition to military targets. When Israel hit Tehran’s main oil facilities on Sunday, igniting widespread fires, Washington expressed dismay. That gap between the two allies is worth watching.

Even after nearly two weeks of this war of choice, Trump continues to reach for justifications. On Monday, he asserted, without evidence, that Iran had been planning to strike first and that the US attack had preempted an Iranian scheme “to take over the entire Middle East.” Such claims will sit uneasily with Gulf partners who have borne a heavy share of the costs — and who were not consulted before the war began.

While Iranian officials insist the fighting will continue unabated, there are indications that Russia and Turkiye may be exploring a mediation role. But the shape of any postwar order remains deeply uncertain. The fallout has already been enormous and the geopolitical reverberations will outlast the conflict itself.

From Tehran’s perspective, any acceptable end to the war will require a new set of negotiating parameters: credible guarantees against future US and Israeli aggression, the lifting of sanctions and a nuclear agreement on favorable terms. Iran’s ballistic missile program, a persistent flash point, will remain a nonnegotiable red line.

Trump is already casting the war as an American victory, laying the rhetorical groundwork for a unilateral declaration that hostilities are over. How Netanyahu would respond to such a move is unclear. What does seem certain is that Israel will not honor a ceasefire in Lebanon — and will press further into the south in its bid to destroy Iran's most valuable regional ally.

For the Gulf states, the reckoning will be longer and more complex. They will need to reassess the foundations of their military partnership with the US, recalibrate their relationships with Israel and Iran, and confront the long-term security implications of a conflict that has left the Arabian Gulf more volatile than before.

• Osama Al-Sharif is a journalist and political commentator based in Amman. X: @plato010