When President Donald Trump promised Iranian protesters that “help is on its way,” he made a commitment that demands fulfillment. The administration appears caught between honoring that pledge and confronting a paralyzing question: what comes after we hit Iran?
The Trump administration is wrestling with whether air campaigns alone can produce meaningful change that serves American interests. Critics immediately invoke Iraq, Syria, and Libya as cautionary tales, warning that intervention risks empowering even more militant leadership in Tehran. But this argument rests on false analogies that misread what distinguishes Iran from its neighbors.
The critical difference lies in the nature of the state. Iraq and Syria are essentially colonial constructs. In Iraq, the post-2003 invasion political system was built to reflect sectarian divides. A Sunni minority under Saddam Hussein ruled a Shia majority, creating explosive tensions once United States forces removed the dictator. In Syria, the Assad’s authoritative regime belonged to the Alawite minority yet ruled over a predominantly Sunni country. The Iranian regime’s oppression generally extends across all of Iranian society.
Persians make up approximately 61% of the population, while significant minority groups include Azerbaijanis, Kurds, Lurs, and Baloch. Critically, approximately 90% of Iran’s population practices Shia Islam. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei himself is an ethnic Azeri, and some of the Islamic Republic’s biggest names have come from ethnic minorities. This integration makes Iran more resistant to the fragmentation that consumed Iraq and Syria.
Another argument against acting rests on preventing “the worse” elements from overtaking the country. But what can be worse than what Iran has now?
Iranian-backed groups in Lebanon, Iraq, and Yemen have constantly challenged U.S. and allied interests. Tehran’s network of proxies creates cascading instability. And, of course, Iran has no regard even for its own people. Allowing this regime to survive in a weakened form presents a danger that exceeds the risks of decisive action. A wounded but intact Islamic Republic will draw a lesson from survival: that nuclear weapons represent the only guarantee against regime change. The regime will dig deeper tunnels under bigger mountains, accelerate uranium enrichment, and pursue the bomb with renewed urgency.
RUBIO: ‘NO ONE KNOWS’ WHO WOULD TAKE OVER IF IRAN’S SUPREME LEADER IS REMOVED
Yes, broadly unsuccessful military campaigns abroad have made the U.S. electorate deeply skeptical of foreign interventions. Yet a recent Politico poll reveals 65% of Trump voters support the U.S. taking military action against its enemies, including Iran. But a more friendly Iranian government could bring new stability to the region and serve as a crucial balancing force where Turkish ambitions grow increasingly assertive. Venezuelan intervention began with naval policing and sustained pressure before yielding results, and Iran may require a similar approach: combining multiple pressure points over an extended timeline.
Put simply, this will demand patience and strategic commitment that Trump may not have fully considered. But he has to act. And if he does so, America will benefit.
