Al Jazeera reported on March 4 that hours after the United States and Israel launched airstrikes against Iran, U.S. President Donald Trump publicly stated that the goal of the war was to bring freedom to the Iranian people. However, several analysts believe that, judging from Washington’s recent rhetoric and actions, the Trump administration’s objective may go far beyond that, potentially aiming to weaken or even dismantle the current ruling system in Tehran.
Kelly Grieco, a senior fellow at the Stimson Center, told Al Jazeera that if Washington truly hopes to bring about regime change in Iran, achieving that objective through airstrikes alone would be extremely difficult.
She said the U.S. government appears unwilling to pay the higher costs required to overthrow a regime, such as deploying ground troops, and may therefore have set a series of “secondary objectives.” If airstrikes fail to produce larger political changes, those objectives could become alternative outcomes.
After the U.S.-Israel joint airstrikes began, Trump addressed the Iranian public, saying their “moment of freedom” had arrived and implying that Iranians should take control of their own government.
“When we finish the job, you can take over the government—it will belong to you,” Trump said.
Success
You are now signed up for our newsletter
Success
Check your email to complete sign up
Matthew Duss, executive vice president at the Center for International Policy, said that historical experience suggests it is extremely difficult to achieve regime change through air power alone.
“Airstrikes can destroy buildings and weaken a regime, but historically there are almost no examples of regime change achieved solely through air power,” Duss said.
NATO’s air campaign in Libya in 2011 ultimately led to the fall of Muammar Gaddafi’s regime, but the decisive factor was the advance of Libyan opposition forces on the ground, which eventually overthrew the government.
The shadow of ground troops: limited support in the United States
Although the U.S. government has not formally announced the deployment of ground troops, the possibility has already raised concern in Washington.
Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal said after attending a closed-door government briefing that he had become increasingly worried about the possibility that the United States could gradually move toward ground military action.
“After hearing this briefing, I am more concerned than ever that the United States could ultimately send ground troops into Iran to achieve the objectives currently set by the government,” he said.
He compared the current situation to the 2003 Iraq War, when multiple opinion polls showed that more than 55 percent of the American public supported the war.
Duss said that if the war drags on—especially if U.S. ground troops become involved—domestic support could decline further.
Officials narrow stated goals to Iran’s nuclear and military programs
Compared with earlier hints of “regime change,” statements by some U.S. officials in recent days have suggested a more limited set of objectives.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said recently that the primary purpose of U.S. operations is to destroy Iran’s nuclear program, drone program, and naval capabilities.
Rubio said Iran is building a vast arsenal of missiles and drones to create external deterrence and provide “immunity” for its nuclear weapons ambitions.
Hegseth emphasized that the United States does not intend to become trapped in an “endless war.” He said the government is working to ensure the mission is completed while avoiding the kind of military interventions in the past that lacked clearly defined objectives.
However, Grieco said the Trump administration has so far failed to present a clear and unified narrative regarding the war’s goals.
“The question is, what exactly is all this for? What outcome are we trying to achieve? The government clearly has not provided a consistent message,” she said.
Conflict expands across the Middle East
The United States and Israel launched large-scale airstrikes against Iran early Saturday.
According to reports, Iran’s supreme leader Ali Khamenei and several senior officials were killed in the attacks, while hundreds of civilians were also reported dead.
The conflict quickly spread across the Middle East. Iran launched retaliatory attacks on targets in Gulf countries and used drones and missiles to strike U.S. assets as well as energy and civilian infrastructure, while continuing missile launches toward Israel.
Armed groups in Iraq with close ties to Iran also claimed responsibility for drone attacks against targets linked to the United States. Lebanon’s Hezbollah joined the conflict as well, against the backdrop of reports that Israel may be preparing a ground invasion in southern Lebanon.
Trump contacts Kurdish forces to increase pressure inside Iran
The Times of Israel reported on March 5 that, according to The Washington Post citing several informed sources, Trump contacted Iranian Kurdish opposition groups and leaders in Iraq’s Kurdish region earlier this week, proposing support such as “extensive U.S. air cover” for related armed forces.
The report said Trump spoke separately with Iranian Kurdish leaders and political figures from Iraq’s semi-autonomous Kurdish region, hoping to encourage Kurdish forces to launch operations inside Iran.
A senior official from the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) said the requests made by the United States to the Iraqi Kurdish side included opening a passage for Iranian Kurdish armed groups to enter Iran “without obstruction,” along with providing certain logistical support.
The official said Trump was very clear during a call with PUK leader Bafel Talabani:
“The Kurds must choose a side in this war—either with the United States and Israel or with Iran.”
Trump also spoke with Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) leader Masoud Barzani. A senior KDP official said Trump delivered a similar message, but emphasized that the key issue was not “who can send more armed forces into Iran,” but rather “who has more supporters inside Iran.”
However, for Kurds in Iran and Iraq, the situation remains extremely delicate.
For years, the United States has supported Kurdish forces in Iraq and Syria, but in broader geopolitical calculations Washington has often prioritized relations with regional states.
The Kurdistan region of Iraq currently maintains a fragile balance with Iran, and both sides have largely avoided supporting attacks against each other.
At the same time, if Iran’s current regime ultimately remains in power, Kurdish armed groups that participate in the confrontation could face severe retaliation.
The PUK official acknowledged the dilemma.
“We are in a very delicate position now. If the ground operation fails, we do not know how Iran will respond to the Kurdistan region of Iraq. But on the other hand, when Trump personally calls to make such a request, it is difficult for us to simply refuse.”
