The U.S. sits poised to make a massive military blunder in Iran, a mistake that could have widespread and long-lasting regional fallout. In recent weeks, the U.S. has been amassing air and naval assets within striking distance of Iran in response to fruitless nuclear talks and the Khamenei Regime’s brutal repression of nationwide protests, which many sources report killed as many as 30,000 Iranians. While the Khamenei Regime has committed horrible crimes against humanity and should absolutely be held accountable for these acts, the Trump administration, emboldened by its ouster of the Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro with one decisive operation, could drag the U.S. into a prolonged and costly conflict by attempting regime change in Iran through military force.  However, the administration’s recent use of military force in Iran in an attempt to destroy its nuclear program and the largest buildup of naval and air assets in the region since the U.S.’s 2003 invasion of Iraq suggest that an air campaign is imminent. 

Bringing about regime change in Iran would not go as smoothly for the U.S. as it did in Venezuela. According to an article in The National Interest by Sina Azodi, an expert on U.S.-Iran relations and Middle East geopolitics, Tehran is well aware that its military, especially its air force, is entirely outclassed by the U.S.’s and that an outright victory is all but impossible. Thus, Iran’s defence strategy lies in imposing unacceptable costs to any attacking force rather than achieving a decisive victory. In this scenario, the threshold for cost unacceptability is particularly low. In the U.S., many believe that the Trump administration’s loosely defined goals are not worth the human and material cost. Echoing the thoughts of Americans across the nation, Senator Jack Read of Rhode Island stated, “Before any military action is considered, President Trump must come before the American people, explain why any conflict would be necessary, be honest about the risks and costs and present a clear strategy with a defined endgame.” With this low-cost acceptability threshold in the U.S., Iran would likely be able to de-escalate any direct conflict relatively quickly.

Using military action against Iran opens the door to a wider regional conflict. In the aforementioned article, Azodi also notes that Iran sees this conflict as a continuation of the 12-Day War in June of 2025. As a result, Iran’s defence of a U.S. air campaign would likely involve ballistic missile and drone attacks on Israel as well as U.S. forces stationed around the Middle East. Former Iranian defence minister Shamkhani stated that “a limited strike [on Iran] is an illusion,” that any military action would be treated as full-scale war and would be ample justification to attack the U.S. and Israel alike. In response, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu promised an “unimaginable response” in the event of an Iranian attack on Israeli territory. It’s also important to consider the remnants of the proxies forming Iran’s Axis of Resistance. In a New York Times article, anonymous U.S. security officials claimed that they are “monitoring increasingly worrisome signs that Iran could direct proxies to conduct retaliatory attacks against American targets in Europe and the Middle East” if the U.S. carries out large-scale strikes on Iran. The Iranian-led global ‘Axis of Resistance’ is sharply diminished in areas immediately bordering Israel,” William F. Weshcler, Senior Director of the Atlantic Council’s Middle East Program, told the NYT, “but it is still capable just beyond that reach in places like Iraq and Yemen, and even farther afield,” he continued. 

Most importantly, the humanitarian cost of military action against Iran would be high. When President Trump initially responded to the Khamenei Regime’s crackdown on protesters, he told Iranians to keep protesting and that “help is on its way.” Even if the U.S. only carries out strikes on military facilities and facilities related to the Iranian nuclear program, collateral damage is likely. If the U.S. decides to bomb government targets in Tehran, the likelihood of civilian casualties increases greatly. While the Khamenei Regime should not remain in power and should be punished for its crimes, a large-scale air campaign to bomb Khamenei out of power would hurt the Iranian people more than it would help them. 

The U.S. and Iran have scheduled more talks, talks which, hopefully, will be able to bring about a peaceful end to the current standoff without violence spreading throughout the region. For now, the situation remains tense, and at any given moment, the U.S. could decide to attack, just as it did in Venezuela. Only this time, the consequences could have a much wider fallout.