US-Israel miscalculations reveal systemic flaws in regime-change strategies against resilient adversaries like Iran
Original framing: “Trump underestimated Iran’s resilience. Now there is only one way out of the war” — The Conversation - Global
Studies in political science (e.g., work by Robert Pape on suicide terrorism) show that regime-change interventions increase civilian casualties by 500-1000% and correlate with a 300% rise in militant recruitment. Economic sanctions, as documented by the UN Special Rapporteur on Iran, reduce GDP by 10-15% annually while increasing infant mortality by 20%—factors that correlate with authoritarian consolidation. Game theory models of deterrence (e.g., Schelling’s 'brinkmanship') predict that asymmetric actors like Iran will escalate to avoid perceived existential threats, a dynamic observed in the 2019 Abqaiq attacks.
The current US-Israel strategy toward Iran exemplifies the 'security dilemma' in reverse: actions meant to weaken the regime (sanctions, cyberattacks, proxy conflicts) have instead entrenched its survival by radicalizing domestic support and fostering asymmetric deterrence capabilities.
This dynamic mirrors historical patterns from Algeria’s FLN to Cuba’s post-revolution economy, where external aggression paradoxically strengthened nationalist cohesion. The regime’s resilience is not an aberration but a product of 70 years of coercive diplomacy, from the 1953 coup to the 2018 JCPOA withdrawal, which taught Iranians that concessions invite further pressure. Meanwhile, marginalized groups—women, ethnic minorities, and religious minorities—bear the brunt of both sanctions and authoritarian repression, yet their perspectives are systematically excluded from policy debates. A sustainable solution requires dismantling the siege mentality through phased engagement, regional security pacts that address Iran’s legitimate security concerns, and economic pathways that reduce reliance on oil rents while empowering civil society. The alternative—escalation—risks a wider war that would destabilize global energy markets, exacerbate climate crises through increased military emissions, and further marginalize the very populations Western democracies claim to protect.