Six days after the start of Operation Epic Fury, President Trump went to Truth Social to announcein the context of the current joint US-Israeli military campaign against the Islamic Republic of Iran: “There will be no agreement with Iran except UNCONDITIONAL RENDER!” In the same post, the president seemed to equate that “unconditional surrender” with “the selection of a GREAT AND ACCEPTABLE Leader” to lead Iran, which would allow the country to return from the “brink of destruction” and emerge “stronger than ever.”
Just three days after announcing “unconditional surrender” as a goal, Trump, speaking March 9 in Doral, Florida, proclaimed that the end of the war will happen “coming soon.” One could be forgiven for experiencing whiplash, especially since that same day, Trump told Fox News that he was “not happy“with Iran's appointment of a new supreme leader, Mojtaba Khamenei. In fact, around the same time he demanded “unconditional surrender” the previous week, Trump had already called Khamenei the youngest”unacceptable.”
What exactly is going on here?
Trump is a conservative nationalist, which means his general approach to foreign policy and its specific foreign policy”excursions” are guided by their vision of how best to secure the American national interest. Consequently, since Operation Epic Fury began, Pentagon press conferences featuring Secretary of War Pete Hegseth and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dan Caine have repeatedly emphasized empirical metrics to measure success, such as Iranian naval ships sunk, Iranian air force planes shot down, Iranian ballistic missile silos and launch sites. destroyed, etc.
Trump hasn't said it explicitly, but the Trump administration's goal (and thus definition of victory) in Operation Epic Fury seems pretty clear: the neutralization of Iran as an active and continuing threat to the United States and our interests. At least that's how victory is achieved in the current campaign. ought be defined.
However, this still raises at least one pressing question, especially in the context of Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi's exile. call to the Iranian people prepare for “the decisive stage of our final struggle”: where does the most controversial of foreign policy objectives, “regime change” fit into the puzzle?
At this point, it is undeniable that a complete regime change is the most desirable outcome for the conflict in Iran. The pursuit of regime change as a goal in itself is now often belittled, following the failed neoconservative boondoggles of the early part of this century. But it should be axiomatic that there are some foreign regimes that behave in a way that is in the best interest of the American national interest, and that there are some foreign regimes that behave in a way that is contrary to the American national interest. It is natural and logical that we want these latter types of regime to be deeply reformed or completely replaced, especially with the local population at the helm.
Perhaps even more concrete: a despot who has been in power for 37 years like Ali Khamenei is not eliminated, as the American and Israeli armies did in the first hours of the present operation, and No hope for large-scale regime change. All People of good will should expect that outcome: that the Iranian people will rise like lions and throw off the yoke of tyranny once and for all, achieving in the process a long-sought victory for the American national interest.
But it is quite possible that large-scale regime change will not occur. The people of Iran have just witnessed tens of thousands of their compatriots brutally gunned down during the anti-regime uprisings of late December and early January. They are an unarmed population facing the military boots of the Nazi regime, in the form of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and the Basij paramilitaries.
All of this, then, raises one final question: Is it possible that there will be a victory in Operation Epic Fury and that the Iranian regime will be neutralized as a threat to the United States and our interests, if there is it's not A large-scale regime change in Tehran?
In theory, the answer is yes. Venezuela provides a model.
Delcy Rodríguez, the current leader, is a hardened Marxist-Leninist in the mold of her predecessors Hugo Chávez and Nicolás Maduro. But Rodríguez has cooperated fully with the United States since amazing January operation ousting Maduro for the simple reason that she has no real choice in the matter: she remains in power, yes, but only on the condition of an “offer” presented by Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio that, borrowing from Vito Corleone in “The Godfather,” Rodríguez “cannot refuse.” Thus, Rodríguez has cooperated fully in areas such as the American oil extraction and the restoration of diplomatic relations with the United States.
In theory, a similar deal is possible with a decimated and punished regime in Tehran. And some experts predict that such an agreement will characterize Iran's regime within a year or two. In practice, however, there is the ever-thorny problem that has frustrated and perplexed Westerners for decades when they try to reason with zealous Islamists: They do not fear death. With a socialist like Delcy Rodríguez, ultimately, one can reason; an Islamist like Mojtaba Khamenei (or his successor), perhaps not.
The cleanest solution to the Iran quagmire at this particular juncture – and the one that most clearly meets Trump's “unconditional surrender” victory criterion – is, in fact, large-scale regime change. That is undoubtedly the best outcome for neutralizing the Iranian threat and correspondingly advancing the American national interest. I'm far from sure this will happen. But like many, I pray it is done quickly.
Josh Hammer's latest book is “Israel and Civilization: The Fate of the Jewish Nation and the Fate of the West.”.” This article was produced in collaboration with Creators Syndicate. UNKNOWN: @josh_hammer
