Dismantling Terror: Why Iran’s Theocracy Must Fall
Today, Israel's recent, decisive military campaign against the Iranian regime stands as an unparalleled triumph of strategic daring and military execution, a testament to its capabilities in a hostile region. The sheer scale of Israel’s accomplishments in just the first week commands international admiration and reflects a paradigm shift in how such threats can be addressed: precision strikes crippled Iran's nuclear program at Natanz and Isfahan, obliterating thousands of centrifuges and severely damaging the Arak heavy-water reactor.
These actions alone have set back Iran's nuclear weaponization efforts by critical months, disrupting their trajectory toward an atomic arsenal, even as the deeply buried Fordow facility remains a formidable challenge. The Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) further executed a surgical decapitation strike, eliminating nearly the entire top echelon of Iran's military leadership, including the feared IRGC Quds Force Commander, Brigadier General Esmail Ghaani, and Major General Ali Shadmani, along with over a dozen critical nuclear scientists. This has shattered Iran's command and control structure, leaving it in profound disarray.
Beyond leadership, Israel also systematically degraded Iran's offensive capabilities, destroying approximately half of its ballistic missile launchers—over 200 of them—and annihilating an estimated 35-45% of its missile stockpile. This has drastically curtailed Iran's capacity for effective retaliation. Concurrent airstrikes pulverized air defenses, missile silos, and vital military bases, securing decisive, albeit temporary, air superiority for Israel.
Lastly, strategic infrastructure, including critical energy fields and expansive fuel depots, along with the Defense Ministry headquarters and the state broadcaster, were hit deliberately to destabilize the regime's control and messaging. Despite Israel enduring several subsequent hypersonic missile and drone attacks, which regrettably caused civilian casualties, and the persistent challenge posed by Fordow's resilience, the campaign's achievements were undeniable.
Yet, amid this strategic success and the clear vulnerability of the Iranian regime, President Donald Trump’s behavior, marked by his recent comments on the conflict's resolution, appears inexplicably perplexing. His administration's deferral on neutralizing the Fordow facility, awaiting diplomatic outcomes between Tehran and Washington, signals a profound and dangerous miscalculation. This presidential insistence on keeping the door open for a "deal" with Iran, a regime that has perpetrated decades of mayhem and demonstrably cannot be trusted, shows a shocking lack of foresight.
It is analogous to a boxing referee extending an extra round to a thoroughly beaten opponent, granting a battered adversary an unearned opportunity to summon a desperate "Hail Mary" pass that could, against all odds, deliver the catastrophic military victory it craves. Why would the President offer such a lifeline to the evil and despotic Ayatollah Khamenei, especially when, with his tacit approval, Iran could conceivably construct a nuclear bomb within a week? Why is the President playing roulette, offering this rogue regime a chance to snatch a catastrophic triumph from the jaws of defeat?
Thomas Sowell, a prominent conservative economist and social theorist, was a vocal critic of the Obama administration's foreign policy towards Iran, particularly concerning its response to the Green Revolution in 2009. Sowell consistently argued that the Obama administration's emphasis on diplomatic engagement with the Iranian regime, especially in pursuit of a nuclear deal, came at the expense of supporting the Iranian people's aspirations for freedom and democracy. He viewed the administration's cautious stance during the 2009 protests as a profound moral and strategic failure.
He believed that by not offering stronger, more unequivocal public solidarity and practical support to the Green Movement, the U.S. effectively abandoned the protesters. Sowell and like-minded critics often contended that the regime was uniquely vulnerable at that moment, and a more forceful U.S. stance could have genuinely tipped the scales towards a democratic outcome. He suggested that Obama's reluctance was driven by a misplaced fear of alienating the Iranian regime and jeopardizing nuclear negotiations, which Sowell frequently dismissed as "charades" or "worthless agreements."
For Sowell, this represented a fundamental misjudgment of priorities: prioritizing a flawed diplomatic process with a tyrannical regime over the moral imperative of supporting a popular uprising for freedom. He contrasted this with historical examples, arguing that the consequences of such inaction in the face of tyranny could be dire, potentially leading to greater dangers down the line by allowing oppressive regimes to consolidate power and pursue dangerous agendas, such as nuclear weapons.
Critics and historians rightly contend that Obama's inaction was a monumental "missed opportunity" that left protesters isolated against brutal suppression, demonstrating a painful trade-off between perceived diplomatic expediency and moral courage. While Obama later acknowledged this as a mistake, recognizing the moral imperative of solidarity with those yearning for freedom, Trump's potential error today is even more severe.
The situation in Iran today is radically different and far more critical. Over 80% of the Iranian populace now openly detests the Shiite theocracy,[1] with widespread abandonment of Shiite Islam and mosques shutting down due to pervasive disdain for coercive religion.[2] Women are brutally repressed, murdered, and even blinded for defying coercive religious laws, showcasing the regime’s extreme brutality.[3] The Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi is tirelessly working to galvanize the Iranian people for an uprising, and many disillusioned associates within the Ayatollah’s circle are now actively seeking change.
President Trump's current stance suggests he not only failed to learn from President Obama’s 2009 mistake regarding the Green Revolution but, more seriously, has failed to grasp the very lesson inherent in Obama's subsequent regret. Instead, his singular focus on "making a deal" risks facilitating a scenario that could result in the possible deaths of countless Jews in Israel, should Iran fulfill its promise to annihilate the Jewish state.
The imperative for the President to insist on regime change is multifaceted and overwhelming: it aligns the U.S. with universal human rights by ending brutal repression; it's the only way to dismantle the world's foremost state sponsor of terrorism and end its proxy wars; a fundamental shift in governance is crucial for permanent nuclear non-proliferation and curbing ballistic missile threats; and economically, it would unleash vast opportunities for the Iranian people.
If President Trump genuinely aims to win the Nobel Peace Prize, pursuing this path—championing genuine regime change and supporting a democratic transition under leadership like Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi's—would be the strategy truly capable of sustaining a lasting peace between Iran and Israel, and indeed, transforming the broader Middle East.
[1] Opinion Survey Reveals Overwhelming Majority Rejecting Iran’s Regime | Iran International
[2] Fall In Mosque-Goers In Iran Now ‘Highly Alarming’ - Minister | Iran International
[3] Iran: 2 Years On From Woman’s Death, No Change | Human Rights Watch