On February 28, 2026, American and Israeli forces launched a significant military operation against Iran, following the largest U.S. military buildup in the Middle East in decades. President Trump described the strikes as “major combat operations” and called for regime change in Tehran. Reports indicated that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was killed in the strikes, escalating tensions in the region.
To understand the implications of these events, Alfonso Serrano spoke with Donald Heflin, a diplomat and professor at Tufts University.
What do the extensive attacks signify?
Heflin believes the U.S. strategy aims for regime change. The initial attacks focus on disrupting Iran’s command and control centers. Given the scale and coordination, it suggests a determined effort to destabilize the Iranian government.
Is regime change feasible?
Heflin cautions that achieving regime change is complicated. Historical examples like the Gulf War show that encouraging uprisings doesn’t always lead to success. After the U.S. urged Iraqis to rebel, it ultimately withheld substantial military support, leading to a lack of popular uprising and lingering resentment. In Iran, a similar dynamic might play out. People often unite in support of their government during attacks, especially against a backdrop of military action.
Will U.S. troops be deployed on the ground?
Heflin predicts that large numbers of U.S. troops are unlikely to be sent. While special forces might operate quietly, a significant deployment could result in heavy casualties. Trump’s administration has historically avoided large-scale military interventions, preferring smaller, targeted operations.
What are the risks for Trump?
There are considerable risks involved. Iran could retaliate dramatically, possibly targeting high-profile locations. If the attacks fail to topple the leadership, the U.S. might find itself in a precarious position. Additionally, removing leaders raises the question of who will succeed them—if hardliners take power, the situation might worsen rather than improve.
The Revolutionary Guards, a core element of Iran’s military, could fill any power vacuum. Historically, these elements have had little inclination to negotiate with the U.S., given their revolutionary ideology. After 47 years of a revolutionary regime, their hardline stance may create new challenges for any potential future diplomatic efforts.
Final thoughts?
Heflin notes that the timing is significant. The Iranian regime has faced widespread unrest recently, with reports suggesting substantial human rights abuses—estimates of protester deaths reach into the thousands. This context provides a justification for U.S. military intervention, framing it as necessary to protect Iranian citizens from their government’s violence.
However, the potential outcome remains uncertain. Past military interventions have often led to unintended consequences. As the strikes unfold, the resilience of the Iranian regime will be tested, and the historical lessons from Iraq and other interventions may serve as cautionary tales for the U.S. and its allies.
For insights on military conflicts and regulations, visit credible sources like the Council on Foreign Relations to stay informed on evolving geopolitical landscapes.
