America's Gamble: Regime Change, Retreat, or State Collapse in Iran | Hamidreza Azizi

What It Covers

Iranian scholar Hamidreza Azizi analyzes the US-Israeli military campaign against Iran through week three, examining divergent American and Israeli objectives, the strategic significance of leadership assassinations including Ali Larijani, Iran's war-of-attrition strategy, nuclear weaponization incentives, and Gulf state positions as the conflict escalates regionally.

Key Questions Answered

• •Divergent war objectives: The US and Israel entered this conflict with fundamentally incompatible goals. Israel seeks either regime change leading to a compliant government or prolonged state collapse guaranteeing Iranian incapacity for decades. Trump appears to want a negotiated settlement with pragmatic Iranian counterparts — an outcome Israel's decapitation strategy actively undermines by eliminating exactly those figures.
• •Iran's attrition strategy: Iranian military planners prepared for a two-to-three month war of attrition, not a short campaign. Their operational sequence — targeting US regional assets, Gulf energy infrastructure, closing the Strait of Hormuz, then potentially activating Houthi disruption of the Bab-el-Mandeb — reflects a deliberate escalation ladder designed to globalize costs and deter future US presidents from supporting Israeli strikes.
• •Larijani's assassination accelerates hardliner control: Larijani's unique value was bridging the IRGC military apparatus with political decision-making, making him the most viable conduit for any negotiated settlement. His elimination, combined with earlier killings, shifts effective control toward figures like Ghalibov and Vaidi — commanders who understand warfare but lack the diplomatic experience required to negotiate a ceasefire.
• •Nuclear weaponization now more likely: Iran halted its nuclear weapons research program in 2003 fearing US invasion post-Iraq. Decades of threshold deterrence strategy — maintaining enrichment capacity without weaponizing — failed to prevent the current war. Surviving hardline leadership now has the strongest historical incentive to weaponize, though the current technical gap involves miniaturizing warheads for missile delivery, not enrichment capacity.
• •Gulf states lack unified position: No single GCC stance exists on this conflict. Oman maintains relative neutrality through traditional mediation and absence of US bases. Qatar seeks de-escalation. Saudi Arabia and UAE, despite being Iranian strike targets, privately signal support for continuing operations — interpreted as pressure on Washington to finish what it started rather than leave them managing a wounded, retaliatory Iran alone.