It has been 157 days since the United States initiated its military campaign against the Islamic Republic of Iran.
The beginning of the Islamic regime’s war against the U.S., of course, really started on Nov. 4, 1979, when Iranian students, working under the auspices of the new regime, seized American hostages in the U.S. Embassy. Since 1979, the Islamic regime has continued to demonstrate its hatred of the U.S. and its willingness to kill and maim Americans. For just one example, during the 2000s, the Islamic regime was responsible for the deaths of between 600 and 1,500 U.S. soldiers, many of whom were torn apart by explosively formed penetrators. The Islamic regime did so by setting up terrorist groups, training them, providing them with money and weapons, and sometimes, even providing targeting and directing their attacks.
Recommended Stories
But since April 7, 2026, the U.S. has somewhat reduced combat operations. Since that time, there has been much discussion of what, exactly, the U.S. should do next.
As the president has declared, the No. 1 goal for the U.S. is that the Islamic regime cannot have nuclear weapons. The Trump administration has also articulated the following secondary goals: degrading Iranian missile and drone forces; degrading the Islamic regime’s military forces; protecting international waterways (i.e., the Strait of Hormuz); weakening the Iranian economy; and dissuading the regime from its strong support of terrorism.
The No. 1 goal has largely been met; as the president said, the nuclear program has been “decimated.” The secondary goals are a more mixed bag — most especially the long-standing U.S. desire to allow for freedom of the seas.
Critics of current U.S. policies favor negotiations with the Islamic regime, like in 2013-2015. However, essentially, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action involved paying the Islamic regime to cease its bad behavior, i.e., its development of nuclear weapons. This didn’t work. Post-2015, the Iranians boosted their development of missiles, continued to work on nuclear development, increased support for terrorism, and never ceased their threats against the U.S. and other nations. Today, rewarding them with more money will just fund more malign Islamic regime behavior, including a redevelopment of nuclear weapons and missiles, an increase in support of terrorism, and their continued pressure on shipping in the Strait of Hormuz.
Thus, negotiations will not accomplish U.S. goals.
In fact, it seems likely that to accomplish all U.S. goals, including freedom of the seas, the U.S. must implement regime change, especially since the Islamic regime leaders, of whatever faction, strongly believe in their Shia Jihadist ideology that demands mass chaos and violence throughout the world to allow their messiah to return. While the leadership may be divided over who should be the real powers in the Islamic regime, and whether they should be willing to pretend to be “moderate” with the U.S. now, after having been defeated in battle, they will not change their own long-standing ideology.
It’s their religion, and they really believe it.
So, if the U.S. needs regime change, the question becomes — how is it to be accomplished? Here are the main options:
The first option is a major land invasion of Iran. Presumably followed by an occupation similar to Iraq and Afghanistan.
The second option is to cease all combat operations, except for the sea blockade of the Islamic regime, the sanctions on Iran, and operation “Project Freedom.” The blockade and the sanctions would steadily grind down the finances of the Islamic regime, while Project Freedom — which would eventually require the participation of other nations — would prevent the Iranians from blocking world trade. Considering how badly the Iranian economy is performing right now, eventually the regime would be unable to pay its troops, which is how the regime would collapse. This might take some time.
The third option is to combine the second option with a continuing air campaign. In other words, to do what we are doing now, but without wasting time on negotiations (although the U.S. may wish to pretend it is negotiating). This would grind down the Islamic regime in a slightly faster manner than the second option.
Then, there are the “add-ons,” which could speed things along:
The U.S. could target “dual-use” sites, including bridges, power stations, etc. Military historian Victor Davis Hanson has promoted this, arguing that this was how the U.S. forced Milosevic in Serbia to stand down — and eventually be deposed — in 1999.
The U.S. could choose to target the Islamic regime’s leadership and its authoritarian structure. This would include Revolutionary Guard headquarters, military barracks, checkpoints, individual Guard fighters, etc. During the prior hostilities, the U.S. did not do this; only Israel did.
The U.S. could choose to support the Iranian opposition. The U.S. could aid both the Persian nationalists and Iranian minorities. The U.S. could also endorse a new Iranian regime of dissidents. The U.S. could even support the dissidents with its air power when they inevitably revolt.
The U.S. could add a land blockade to its sea blockade.
OPINION: JD VANCE HAS IRAN COMPLETELY BACKWARD: CONTINUITY IS CHAOS
My personal preference is the third option — to continue our current campaign — while also using as many as possible of the four add-ons. (I believe a land war would be particularly disastrous.) However, I have no access to classified information, so I cannot evaluate things comprehensively.
President Donald Trump can. As the elected president, he is the “decider.” Good luck, Mr. President.
Adam Turner has worked for over a decade for American Jewish and pro-Israel groups and worked in the first Trump administration. He was also a U.S. Senate staffer.
