Destroying an adversary’s weapons without eliminating the regime that creates and rebuilds them only results in temporary setbacks, not lasting security. In the case of Iran, concluding military operations without achieving fundamental regime change would likely allow the Islamic Republic—or a successor driven by the same ideology—to quickly reconstitute its nuclear program, enhance its missile capabilities, and rearm its terrorist proxies. This poses significant long-term risks to the United States, Israel, and allied nations.

The Iranian regime has a long history of severe human rights violations, including the killing and execution of its own citizens. Despite U.S. and Israeli strikes that have significantly damaged nuclear sites like Natanz and missile infrastructure, Iran has continued to launch deadly attacks, raising doubts about the completeness of the destruction claimed. Even if key facilities were severely damaged, surviving scientists and dispersed expertise would likely accelerate reconstitution efforts with renewed determination.

Iran’s terror proxies, such as Hezbollah and various militias, would remain a persistent threat as long as the regime in Tehran survives to fund, arm, and direct them. Iran is the world’s primary state sponsor of terrorism; preserving the current power structure ensures that these networks continue to exist, keeping Israeli and American citizens in ongoing danger.

The current campaign has revealed Iran’s military vulnerabilities to U.S. and Israeli capabilities. A surviving regime would learn from this experience and adapt, preparing for future confrontations under potentially less resolute leadership.

President Trump has stated that decisive action will make the world safer in the long run, but without sustained strong leadership from figures like Trump and Netanyahu, future U.S. and Israeli administrations may struggle to maintain the same level of deterrence.

In summary, ending the war without regime change is a high-risk proposition.