Iran’s Fate Is Not in Trump’s Hands

Personal considerations play a fundamental role in igniting wars, even when the matter is wrapped in objective and patriotic pretexts. George W. Bush invaded Iraq under the false claim that it possessed weapons of mass destruction. The more important reason was revenge for Saddam Hussein's alleged attempt to assassinate Bush's father, the former president, during a visit to Kuwait. Donald Trump claimed that Iran tried to assassinate him during the 2024 presidential campaign. Yesterday, he stated that he moved first by targeting the Iranian leadership before late Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei could assassinate him, saying: “I got him before he got me.”

Some people downplay the impact of the personal factor. But with a maniacal president who cannot tolerate even a simple difference of opinion, a country that dares not to comply with his demands turns into an enemy that must be eliminated. This approach is not new: It has long been present among drug cartels and the Mafia, and it was used by George W. Bush and, before him, Ronald Reagan. Trump’s only achievement is that he has crudely and brutally transferred it into the world of politics.

However, this kind of Mafia leader does not have a coherent vision for what comes after revenge. Khamenei's assassination is a simple and barbaric solution to an extremely complicated issue. Trump believes that the disappearance of the supreme leader and a large part of Iran’s political and military elite means that change is just around the corner, either through someone emerging from within the regime to strike a deal of submission with him, similar to Venezuela, or through the Iranian people taking to the streets and overthrowing the regime.

Trump does not realize that the Venezuela strategy does not work with an ideological regime. Over the past 47 years, the Iranian regime has penetrated every part of the state, from the top of the hierarchy down to the smallest remote village. If a “defector” from the regime, or even a politician willing to make concessions, were to reach an agreement with the U.S. president, he would almost certainly be eliminated as quickly as possible. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is not merely a military force; it is an ideological religious organization prepared to do anything to defend the regime and itself.

Large-scale protests may be the “hope” of Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu for getting rid of the regime, but populations do not move simply because of a call from a foreign power. Moreover, the regime has its supporters as well. What if Iranian protesters take to the streets while defenders of the current leadership also mobilize? Would a civil war break out, or would the IRGC suppress the opposing demonstrators and thousands fall? What would the U.S. and Israel do? Would they send forces to settle the matter?

In any case, there is unlikely to be a change in the Iranian leadership unless there are troops on the ground — something neither Trump nor Netanyahu would do. History lacks good models of air raids that have brought down regimes. Boots on the ground have the final word. The issue is extremely complicated, and all scenarios remain open. But it is certainly not as Trump, who is waiting for a call from the Iranian leaders to strike the anticipated deal, sees it. It is also not about sending Reza Pahlavi, who has neither popularity nor real capability, from Washington to Tehran. Iran’s priority at the moment is survival: absorbing successive shocks, maintaining what has remained of the leadership, and persuading Iranians not to take to the streets in response to the invaders. It is a strategy fraught with risk, but there is no other alternative available.