US war aims are shifting and unmet. The gamble on a cheap Venezuela-style victory failed. Iran absorbed decapitation, retaliated, and appointed a defiant successor. Washington lacks a coherent exit strategy, having failed to dismantle missile capabilities or achieve regime change.
For nearly three decades, Israeli officials have lobbied the United States to support a ‘regime change’ war against Iran. In February 2026, they finally succeeded.
After two weeks of attacks, however, experts warn that there is no sign of the political collapse or sweeping government overthrow that Washington and Tel Aviv had envisioned.
The joint US-Israeli offensive, launched on 28 February, was predicated on a massive gamble by US President Donald Trump that a decapitation strike against Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei could replicate his administration’s recent swift triumph in Venezuela.
In Caracas, a midnight US operation successfully abducted the Venezuelan president and transported him to American soil by dawn. The Venezuelan military offered negligible resistance, resulting in zero US casualties.
A more US-aligned political figure from Maduro’s inner circle swiftly assumed power, capitulating to Trump’s demands, particularly regarding oil, and rapidly de-escalating the crisis.
Historically, seven previous US presidents had refrained from exercising the military option against Tehran, with the notable exception of Jimmy Carter’s ill-fated attempt to deploy Delta Force.
So why did the US finally pivot in February 2026 to a massive, sustained air and missile campaign alongside Israel, rather than pursuing limited strikes?
A confluence of factors drove the decision, according to analysts. Iran’s highly calculated response during the 12-day war in June to sweeping Israeli attacks and US strikes on its nuclear facilities sent an unintended message to Washington: war with Iran might be low-cost.
The exposure of Iranian vulnerabilities, particularly in its air defences and its lack of advanced fighter jets, cemented this perception. Concurrently, the swift, high-reward victory in Venezuela imbued US policymakers with a sense of military omnipotence.
They concluded that overwhelming force, or the credible threat of it, could permanently alter Tehran’s behaviour.
Furthermore, the domestic unrest of December 2025 and January 2026 amplified suspicions that the Iranian regime’s legitimacy was crumbling, suggesting the public might welcome regime change if an opportunity arose. Believing they could neutralise the Iranian threat on the cheap, the United States opted for war.
To guarantee victory, Washington delayed military action in January, opting instead to amass advanced weaponry and troops in the Middle East.
“The United States has thus far failed to achieve its strategic objectives in the conflict,” Sina Azodi, an Assistant Professor of Middle East Politics at the Elliott School of International Affairs at George Washington University, told The New Arab.
“The Israelis sold this narrative to the Americans and to Mr Trump that because Iran had been weakened, battered by the 2025 war and the January protests, now was the optimal moment to either force an unconditional surrender at the negotiating table or achieve their objectives through military strikes,” Azodi added.
“The Israelis convinced Washington that the Iran problem could be resolved once and for all.”
US strategic goals have also continually shifted, ranging from the war’s length to the intended outcome of military attacks.
“We don’t know exactly what the initial American objectives were, though we’ve heard numerous justifications,” Azodi.
“I believe their underlying intent was to entirely eradicate Iran’s missile program and defence systems, stripping the country of its ability to defend itself. Simultaneously, they aimed to degrade the political system to the point of defencelessness or, if possible, orchestrate full regime change.”
Devastating strikes and a chaotic retaliation
The initial US and Israeli blows were devastating. A preliminary campaign of airstrikes assassinated Iran’s Supreme Leader, the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces, the Commander-in-Chief of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), and the Head of the Supreme National Defence Council.
Subsequent waves pounded Iran’s military, industrial, and even civilian infrastructure.
But Iran absorbed the decapitation strike and retaliated violently. Tehran launched swarms of missiles and drones at Israel and US bases across the region, particularly targeting installations in the Gulf states.
Twelve days into the war, Iranian strikes have continued unabated, while the Strait of Hormuz, a vital global energy chokepoint, has been effectively paralysed by the hostilities.
“It is obvious that the Americans possess battlefield superiority and have imposed that superiority on the Iranian armed forces,” Azodi noted. “But has this dominance helped the Americans achieve their primary goals? Has it neutralised the Iranian military’s capacity to launch missiles and drones at them? I think they have failed in that regard.”
The political analyst emphasised that Tehran is executing its pre-planned deterrence strategy.
“Iran has responded to the US attack with robust determination and, precisely as Iranian officials had telegraphed, has thrown the entire region into chaos. This was Iran’s stated objective from the outset in the event of an attack, and the United States was powerless to prevent it.”
Politically, the US strategy has hit a wall. While Trump demanded unconditional surrender and presumed he could dictate the succession of Iran’s leadership, Tehran swiftly appointed the son of the late Supreme Leader, Mojtaba Khamenei, as his successor.
The move was a defiant signal that the Iranian establishment intends to ignore American demands and maintain its current trajectory.
“I don’t think the Americans have a clear exit strategy to end this war, largely because their objectives remain nebulous even to themselves,” Azodi argued.
“First, it was about neutralising missile capabilities; then it escalated to regime change; then they demanded that Trump select the new Iranian leader; and now they are demanding unconditional surrender,” he added.
“In my view, their core objective was to dismantle Iran’s missile capabilities, which they have so far failed to achieve, and they lack a coherent plan for a way out.”
Even within Israel, the prime architect of the military campaign, there is growing acknowledgement that the operation has fallen short of fundamentally altering Tehran’s calculus.
As former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert bluntly told Politico in a recent interview: “I will be surprised if Iran will change its nature after this phase.”