Why Donald Trump’s Iran Strike May Backfire Strategically

Among the many motives attributed to Donald Trump—denying Iran nuclear capability and destroying its missile capacity—the real objective appears to be regime change. Yet, this requires delegitimising the existing rulers. While they can bomb targets at will, regime change ultimately depends on the Iranian people to finish the job. Now, with the assassination of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, they may well have complicated their own task.It is not just that he was 85 and ailing, but that he was the religious leader of Iran. Martyrdom and revenge are deeply woven into Shia culture, and this could trigger a reaction the United States has not anticipated. The roots of this sentiment stretch back to the martyrdom of the third Imam, Hussain, the grandson of Prophet Mohammed (PBUH), on the battlefield of Karbala in modern Iraq, when the forces of the Caliph ambushed his caravan and killed him after denying him food and water for days. According to the Shia belief, 11 of the 12 Imams of their faith have been either assassinated or poisoned by contemporary rulers. The twelfth Imam, Mahdi, is believed to be in occultation—hidden from common view—and will emerge at the end of times to establish peace, justice, and redeem Islam.Iran Has Been Attacked By US and Israel When Peace Was Within ReachEver since the killing of Hussain, the first month of the Islamic calendar, Muharram, has been one of deep mourning for his martyrdom. Shia Muslims wear black, hold processions, and perform martyrdom rituals, with some participants flagellating themselves, and vowing revenge.But by this assassination, Trump and Netanyahu have triggered a primal response that could well brush aside the differences—deep though they are—among the people of Iran.The Islamic Republic is not a simple pyramid with one cleric at its apex. It is a dense ecosystem of institutions: elected bodies, clerical councils, economic conglomerates and, above all, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). The Guards command military assets, intelligence networks, and vast commercial interests. If one generation of senior clerics were eliminated, others would emerge. Alternatively, the IRGC could consolidate even greater authority, producing a more overtly military-dominated system.Ironically, sustained external attack may strengthen precisely those forces Washington seeks to weaken. The Revolutionary Guards and the Basij militia thrive in environments of siege and nationalism. Even segments of Iranian society critical of clerical rule may hesitate to align with a foreign power engaged in open warfare against their country. History suggests that external pressure often consolidates internal hardliners.There is also the question of feasibility. Regime change achieved primarily through airpower is historically rare. Even where the asymmetry of force was overwhelming, external bombardment alone has struggled to dismantle entrenched political movements. The United States’ own experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan illustrate how the removal of a regime does not guarantee the emergence of stability, let alone liberal governance.Nor is there significant appetite within the American public for another large-scale ground intervention in West Asia. Without ground forces, however, the ability to shape post-conflict political outcomes is severely limited. Air campaigns can degrade infrastructure and military capacity, but they seldom reconstruct political order.At this stage, Iran was not on the verge of becoming a nuclear power, nor did it possess weapons that could be used against the US. It was, perhaps, a threat-in-making, but countries do not have the right to launch preventive attacks against those they merely suspect may pose future threats. A world that permitted such behaviour would become a lawless jungle.None of this absolves Tehran of responsibility for its own policies—from regional interventions to domestic repression verging on the brutal. But durable security arrangements are built on reciprocal restraint, not unilateral dictates. If the objective is to ensure that Iran never acquires a nuclear weapon, mechanisms of verification and phased sanctions relief have previously demonstrated at least partial effectiveness.Ayatollah Khamenei Ruled Iran With an Iron Fist. He Will Not Be Revered By ManyThe alternative—pursuing total strategic defeat—risks perpetual escalation.It assumes that the Islamic Republic can be bombed into submission without unleashing broader instability. It assumes that Iranian society will interpret foreign strikes as liberation rather than aggression. And it assumes that regional order can survive the sustained degradation of a major state without cascading consequences.Trump has framed the US war on Iran as a necessity arising from the allegedly imminent threat Iran posed to the United States. So, it is all about the security of the US, and presumably Israel. But there is little concern for the security and stability of the region. We are already witnessing the attacks being faced by the UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, Oman, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia.The shutting down of the Straits of Hormuz affects 20 percent of the global oil supply. A prolonged shutoff would definitely result in a spike in oil prices. But an even more daunting scenario is of a desperate Iran attacking the oil and gas infrastructure of the region. Most major fields and ports lie within missile range and are populated by Shia communities.Across these states, more than nine million Indian citizens live and work, generating nearly 40 per cent of India’s overseas remittances. Equally important, the region supplies roughly 50 per cent of India’s oil and 47 per cent of its LNG. It is also a major trade partner, accounting for $179 billion in trade in 2025, including engineering goods, rice, textiles, machinery, and gems and jewellery. The GCC’s cumulative investments in India exceed $30 billion and continue to rise.The US had forced India to stop buying oil from Iran in 2019. India was negotiating with the Washington to continue operating the port of Chabahar, where it has invested considerable money. This was aimed at providing India access to Afghanistan and Central Asia. But now that project is likely to be shelved. Prime Minister Modi’s condemnation of the Iranian attack on the UAE—even while he had nothing to say about the American-Israeli attack on Iran or Khamanei's death—suggests that, for now, India has abandoned its so-called multi-alignment policy in relation to Iran.Few in India have grasped how severely Indian interests could be affected by this reckless US-Israeli war. At a superficial level, many of the Gulf countries assume that Iran’s defeat will bring peace to the region. History, however, shows that coerced peace rarely endures.(The writer is a Distinguished Fellow, Observer Research Foundation, New Delhi. This is an opinion piece and views expressed are the author's own. The Quint does not endorse or is responsible for them.)

BECOME A MEMBER

Trump’s Iran Gambit Risks Strengthening Hardliners, Not Weakening Them

US-Israel have triggered a primal response that could well brush aside the differences among the people of Iran.

Read Latest News and Breaking News at The Quint, browse for more from opinion

Topics: Israel US Iran