What are the objectives of the Iran bombing campaign and will we achieve them?

I’ve learned never to be giddy about the start of a war. However, for the reasons stated here, I think President Trump made the correct decision in starting the war against Iran.

What are our objectives in this war of choice? That’s the question I hear various talking heads on CNN ask.

It would be a fair question but the fact that Trump has already answered it. In his statement to the American people, which Bill posted here, Trump set forth several objectives. (The left tends to have trouble, or pretends to, understanding that there can be more than one objective and that the existence of several isn’t the same thing as inconsistency.)

One stated objective of the war is to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. Another is to destroy its existing military capacity — their missiles, their navy, and their ability to supply weapons to the region’s terrorist proxies.

A third stated objective is regime change. To that end, Trump urged Iranians to stay at home while the bombs are dropping, but then to “take over your government.” To further that objective, the U.S. and Israel have already killed key regime leaders, including the “Supreme” one, and presumably are targeting the regime’s shock troops.

I think the war the U.S. and Israel are waging will largely achieve the first two objectives. Absent regime change, Iran might try to rebuild its nuclear program, but it’s unlikely to succeed in the foreseeable future. As for its existing military capacity, we won’t be able to destroy every last missile, missile launcher, ship, etc. But we can probably deal a huge setback to the regime’s war-making capabilities.

Making substantial headway on the first two goals would be enough to make our attack worthwhile, in my view. Regime change is to be desired, both in and of itself and because it might well end the nation’s nuclear weapons aspiration. But even if the regime survives, I will view the war as a success if it achieves our other goals.

What, though, are the prospects for regime change now? To answer this question, we must first describe the current regime. I’ll describe it as a mixture of leading mullahs and leading military/security apparatus personnel. From the outside, the mullahs seem to dominate, but I don’t know this to be the case.

With this description in mind, we can identify two kinds of regime change. In the first, the military pushes the mullahs and their loyalists aside and runs the country. In the second, the people take control, as Trump has called on them to do, and establish something like a democracy.

The first form of change — regime-change lite — seems like a distinct possibility. Surely, the regular military is tired of being hit with attacks, caused by the mullahs’ intransigence, against which it can’t defend. It must also be tired of the dreadful economic situation in Iran. The regular military might even be tired of the massacre of protesters.

It may well be true that the regime’s shock troops, not the regular military, have a preponderance of force. But that may no longer be true when our bombing campaign ends.

One also has to wonder whether the shock troops have had enough of the mullahs. It may be that only fear of retaliation in the event of a successful revolution keeps them loyal. But if the military ascends with the help of elements of the shock troops, retaliation might not be seen as a threat — at least not on a large scale.

Would regime-change lite advance American interests? I think so, though not as much as truer regime change would. A new government run by the military would, I assume, be repressive. But it probably wouldn’t want to alienate the U.S.

For a rough analogy, think of the aftermath of our seizure of Maduro in Venezuela. Much of the old regime remains in place minus Maduro, but now tends to do America’s bidding — or at least no longer acts against our interest.

As for true regime change — the establishment of something like a democracy — I have a harder time understanding how our bombing campaign will lead to that. Trump urges the people to return to the streets after the bombing stops and “take your government.” But how will they overcome the armed forces arrayed against them and fearful of retaliation if they lose power? What will the people use for weapons?

They probably will need a critical mass of armed forces members behind them. But will the armed forces take a back seat to the public? That seems unlikely to me.

But who really knows? I think we can have confidence that the bombing campaign will produce benefits for the security of the region and of the U.S. Whether or to what extent it will produce benefits for the Iranian people seems less clear.