Raghida Dergham: Is it the end for the Iranian regime?

The “Epic Fury” operation launched by US President Donald Trump against the Iranian regime came with a pledge of total annihilation, not the readiness for another round of delays, negotiations, and dripping concessions.

This operation was meticulously planned and constrained by military leadership, awaiting the political decision from Donald Trump. When he finally made that decision after prolonged hesitation and waiting, Trump did not speak only about the nuclear issue, but also addressed Iranian missiles and Iran’s proxies and regional affiliates. He deliberately referenced what he called the Iranian regime’s terrorist history against the United States and American interests, and declared his determination to topple the regime.

He summoned the regime’s leadership to surrender and seek immunity, warning that otherwise, destruction awaited them, and reminded the Iranian people that this was a moment that could not be replaced in taking control of their destiny – because they now had an American president ready to support them, after years of seeking help from previous presidents to no avail.

The American president waited until he secured nearly 100 percent assurance from the military establishment that the operation in Iran would not fail or backfire, as he feared failure and its repercussions on him and the United States. He spoke openly about casualties among soldiers – a break from the usual language of American presidents, who typically try to reassure the American public that US forces are safe regardless of what unfolds.

 

The “Epic Fury” operation launched by US President Donald Trump against the Iranian regime came with a pledge of total annihilation, not the readiness for another round of delays, negotiations, and dripping concessions.

Initially, US leadership planned to complete the operation in Tehran within a week, as they had mapped out plans to target the regime’s core structures and cut its ability to communicate both internally across Iran and externally with its proxies. In other words, the goal was to paralyze the regime’s command and coordination capabilities.

Primarily, the main objective to destabilize the regime was not only to target key religious and political leaders, but also to systematically neutralize the leadership of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), which issues instructions to proxies abroad, including Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, and the Popular Mobilization Forces in Iraq.

Initially, the American president did not intend to destroy the entire regime infrastructure as had occurred with the US invasion and occupation of Iraq under former President George W. Bush. Trump was determined not to repeat Bush’s catastrophic mistake of disbanding and dismantling the army.
Trump and his military and intelligence apparatus partly relied on the continuity of the Iranian army – whether it remained cohesive or experienced defections. Its survival offered keys to containing chaos and attracting some of those angry at the regime’s destruction.

Civilian opposition leaders inside and outside Iran also play important roles in a potential transitional phase. But the core American and Israeli objective is the complete dismantling of the IRGC. Other components of the regime can be destabilized, paralyzed, or contained more easily. This, of course, is alongside the broader weakening of the entire system through targeted eliminations of leadership.

It is astonishing how poorly Iranian leadership read the United States, particularly President Trump. Astonishing that they thought they could buy off the American president with economic and investment incentives as a substitute for the obligations required of them – nuclear, missile-related, and regarding proxies and regional affiliates. Astonishing that they believed they could master the art of buying time and trap Trump in their game, thinking successive concessions could achieve their ultimate goal: limiting negotiations to the nuclear file alone and excluding missiles and proxies.
It is astonishing how they underestimated the seriousness of American leadership insisting that ballistic missiles and Iran’s militias in the region remain on the table. Astonishing how far Iranian self-confidence went – believing that drip-feeding concessions was the best way to secure deals and understanding.

It is also astonishing how Iranian leaders imagined that targeting Gulf Arab states opposed to military operations would be a trivial matter, when their missile launches caused panic among civilians, while in reality, it was they who were truly anxious.

The Iranian regime could have saved itself if it had acted with realism, prudence, and pragmatism, negotiating seriously based on reality.

Iranian leaders also misjudged their regional and international position. They failed to recognize that neither China nor Russia would come to their aid in the event of a war with the United States. They dug themselves into a trench of isolation, finding themselves alone under siege.

READ: Makram Rabah: Is Lebanon in denial about Hezbollah?

Practically, IRGC leaders in Tehran trapped Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, and the Popular Mobilization Forces in Iraq in a predicament neither capable of rescue nor willing to provide a lifeline. In effect, Iran abandoned its proxies, just as its allies abandoned it in the critical hour.

Call it pride and strategic arrogance, call it strategic patience – the reality now unfolding within the regime in Tehran is strategic suicide.

There will be no return to yesterday’s system in Iran, no matter how long or short the war lasts. Iran’s proxies have no ability to impose conditions or boast imaginary victories based solely on the losses inflicted on adversaries.

The Islamic Republic’s system is destabilized at its core, and there is no benefit in burying one’s head in the sand.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Maghrebi.org. Raghida Dergham is a Lebanese-American journalist based in Beirut. She is the founder and executive chairwoman of the Beirut Institute, an independent think tank hosting global events. This article was originally published by Alarabiya.

If you wish to pitch an opinion piece please send your article to opinion@maghrebi.org.