Maybe Real Regime Change Hasn’t Been Tried Yet
The ongoing buildup in the Middle East is unlikely to be symbolic or a bargaining ploy for the Art of the Deal. Israel’s (and thus Trump’s) conflict with Iran is not about Iran’s nuclear program which is perpetually 1-2 weeks away from making a bomb. It’s about establishing Greater Israel before American support ends due to the Epstein files and the great Boomer die off.
A poll I conducted for the Homeland Institute shows that support for Israel isn’t just declining. That decline is accelerating. I’m sure our enemies have their own polls which show the same or similar, even if they don’t release them to the public. Tucker Carlson is on the same page as I am. He recently said that this is Israel’s last chance to drag America into a war and that no amount of internet censorship or arresting people can change anything at this point.
A war with Iran is entirely Israel First, America Last given the disparity in costs and risks. For Israel to win such a war, all it needs to do is to wreck Iran. In contrast, for America to “win” (to the extent one can win a war that is not in one’s interest) several highly improbable, if not fantastical, things would need to happen.
First, ZOG (Zionist Occupied Government, as in the US and Israel) would need to win the conventional war. I previously wrote about how Iran is likely to do much better in another Iranian-Israeli war. In a best-case scenario, American interceptors would still be heavily depleted, weakening our position against Russian and Chinese aggression in Europe and the Pacific. Based on how Iran was able to penetrate Al-Udeid’s Patriot Defense system during a limited symbolic strike, it’s likely that real Iranian retaliation would level that base. It’s also possible that an aircraft carrier would be wrecked. While carriers are almost impossible to sink, they are still flammable. So it’s possible that the USS Gerald R. Ford with its sewage issues would be reduced to a floating porta potty fire. Which is much worse than a dumpster fire. It’s also likely that the American taxpayer will have to bail out Israel’s economy, which would be severely damaged by constant shelter-in-place orders, a reserve callup, and destroyed infrastructure.
Trump has allegedly floated the idea of a limited strike. But this is simply delusional because “wars begin when you will, but they do not end when you please.”
Iran is more likely to escalate from a limited strike rather than deescalate due to TACO: Trump Always Chickens Out. Art of the Deal might work in business, which is about the pursuit of profit, but it is unsuited for war and politics, which is about the pursuit of power along identitarian lines. Trump is a reverse Sulla who fails to punish his enemies or reward his friends (at least his goy friends). Why would Iran fear a man who ran away from the Kamikaze Karens of Minneapolis, takes orders from soft-handed judges who have neither guns, money, nor even respect, and failed to avenge the assassination of Charlie Kirk? Trump is a merchant LARPing as a warlord and a statesman. It’s only natural that his domestic failures would eventually have foreign policy implications.
Furthermore, the Epstein files are probably at least a substantial factor in the proposed attack because they are hastening the decline of support for Israel. Ironically this also makes it less likely that Iran will deescalate because they know that any attack would heighten the delegitimizing effect of the Epstein files on both Trump and the uniparty he serves.
Let’s suspend disbelief and assume that ZOG somehow achieves a flawless conventional military victory. ZOG is raining down munitions with impunity as Iranian missiles and drones trickle to a halt. What next?
One must understand that the real war goal here has nothing to do with Iran’s nuclear program and everything to do with destroying a rival of Israel. Thus, a traditional treaty with a conditional surrender between two civilized powers is impossible. Israel will demand that Iran not only denuclearize but dismantle its conventional ballistic missile program—and probably submit their regime to humiliating Nuremberg show trials. Iran will not repeat the mistake of Carthage in the Third Punic War and dismantle what remains of its defenses.
Thus, regime change on the ground will be required. This can be done with foreign troops or with a domestic insurrection. Either way, you can’t occupy a country with planes or boats.
A domestic insurrection is unlikely. The Iranian regime is deeply unpopular and is not achieving its full potential. Iran could have a standard of living comparable to southern Europe if it wasn’t for sanctions. But if Iran becomes destabilized, they could easily be plunged into a Syrian style civil war or Iraqi style insurgency, causing immense death and destruction. Many of the surrounding countries may also try to dismember it, which would be facilitated by their cross border-ethnic minorities. It’s simply safer to deal with a known problem than risk losing everything.
You can buy Greg Johnson’s Is America Doomed? here.
Furthermore, Donald Trump and the pretender Crown Prince Pahlavi instigated the Persian equivalent of January 6. They promised aid to rioters (not peaceful protestors) in early January but then failed to follow through. ZOG probably hoped to fan the flames of insurrection and then swoop in to declare victory or give it a little extra push to cross the finish line. Because the insurrection (which unlike J6 was an actual insurrection with rioters burning mosques and government buildings and shooting at security forces) failed, many of its most radical supporters have already been neutralized.
But let’s assume that airstrikes are sufficient to instigate a domestic pro-Pahlavi insurrection. Pahlavi would then have to rule. But he is a tool of Israel, and his daughter Iman Pahlavi is even married to the Jewish businessman Bradley Sherman.
Pahlavi’s rule would probably be marked by rampant corruption, made even more intolerable by Jewish exploitation (his father’s corruption was a major factor in the 1979 Islamic Revolution). Thus, any initial public support for an improved standard of living arising from sanctions being removed would be eclipsed given that wealth would not be evenly shared. The Iraqis were also initially thrilled about Saddam Hussein being deposed and happily toppled his statues. A few years later, Iraq was mired in a brutal insurgency and counter-insurgency because regime change created a power vacuum while failing to deliver a substantially higher standard of living.
Even if Pahlavi turns out to be a saint, he would need to run Iran as an illiberal democracy (like El Salvador and Hungary) to head off an insurgency. This isn’t just about being able to imprison and execute subversives with impunity. It’s because liberal democracy naturally favors minorities and private interests at the expense of the majority. Iran is brimming with ethnic and religious minorities who would leap at the opportunity to aggrandize themselves. Furthermore, liberal democracy, in addition to making whores of Iran’s daughters with OnlyFans, would whore out its wealth to foreign interests. Illiberal democracy might last while Trump or his successor is in power. But if the Democrats don’t win the 2028 US presidential election, it will be due to their incompetence and repulsiveness surpassing that of the Republicans. And if the Democrats win, they will thrust liberal democracy on Iran for purely ideological reasons.
Thus it’s likely that foreign boots will be needed on the ground, either to invade Iran or to stabilize an insurgency after an initial insurrection. Whose boots? Israeli ones would only intensify an insurgency due to optics, and the fact that they are not “the most moral army in the world” either. Troops from neighboring countries would feel like an invasion, and would probably turn out to be an opportunistic invasion to dismember Iran too. Iranian Shiites and Sunni Arabs also have a centuries old hatred of each other. What about NATO? The only time Article 5 was invoked was September 11, and NATO countries sent thousands of troops to Afghanistan, some of whom died. Instead of appreciating their sacrifice, Trump bashed NATO at Davos in January 2026. Its going to take more than Marco Rubio’s speech at the Munich Security Conference in February to smooth things over. Furthermore, Europe needs to conserve its strength for Russian aggression.
Thus, any boots on the ground will be American. This is a direct contradiction of Pete Hegseth’s previous claim that he would be avoiding mission creep and open-ended security commitments. And any American occupation of Iran would likely end as ignominiously as the Iraqi and Afghani occupations.
Thus, the most straightforward and optimistic path to victory for America is:
- A flawless conventional military victory, followed by
- A successful Persian insurrection, followed by
- Pahlavi running a corruption free illiberal democracy.
I give each of those things about a 10% chance of happening. Thus, America has a 1 out of a 1,000 chance of “winning.” In contrast, all Israel needs to do is wreck Iran, regardless of the damage done to the Iranian people, America, or MAGA. Maybe real regime change hasn’t been tried yet?
Israel would reap all the rewards of a US strike on Iran while America would pay enormous costs. Additionally, MAGA would take the blunt of the blame domestically. My polling has indicated that such a strike would cost the GOP 4.7% of the white vote in the midterms. And because JD Vance and Marco Rubio have joined the Iranian hysteria, a strike will haunt them if they run for president.
Netanyahu must disdainfully look at Trump, and now Vance and Rubio, as dumb goyim if they are willing to bear such risks and costs for no benefit. We should also look at them with disdain if they choose to act as such. And I for one will not vote for cattle.
My Delphic prophecy is that if Trump goes to war with Iran, there will be regime change. But it is more likely to be his own.
https://counter-currents.com/2026/02/maybe-real-regime-change-hasnt-been-tried-yet