Iran regime change, Trump-style - wipe out the mullahs and avoid invasion
Monday, 2 March 2026
OPINION: The United States and Israeli offensive against Iran has been designed to not just chop off the head of the regime - which it has already done - but to completely denude its military and political people and infrastructure.
It is unclear how long the assault will go for, but the goal is seemingly obvious: to bring the Islamic regime in Tehran to heel and make whoever emerges as the new leader deal with the US to liberalise the regime - or face the same fate.
In one sense, it is amazing that the US has allowed the regime, with its Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corp (IRGC), to carry on for so long. And that it has taken Donald Trump of all people to try to wipe it out.
The Iranian Islamic Revolution in 1979 was just that, a revolution. Designed to overthrow the previously more liberal regime and replace it with theocracy headed by an Ayatollah and priestly class, to whom civic leaders are accountable.
Read more:
NZ calls for resumption of negotiations with Iran following US strikes
Iranians celebrate and mourn attacks as expert says regime change unlikely
The job of the IRGC - in addition to violently murdering and repressing all opposition to the regime - was to export that revolution abroad. In practice this meant that Iran has been the biggest state sponsor of terror in the world. It has backed the so-called three Hs: Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon and the Houthis in Yemen.
As well as sponsoring specific attacks on US targets over the decades, it backed the barbarous regime of Bashar al-Assad in Syria and manufactures drones for Russia’s war on Ukraine. It has tried to spread its version of Islam throughout the middle east.
This is a regime that, within the past couple of years, has been behind attacks on a Synagogue and cafe in Australia, according to Australian intelligence services. The Aussies suspended the Iranian ambassador to Canberra last year.
New Zealand has only not been targeted (as far as we know) through a mixture of good luck, probably size, probably distance and the fact there are very small Iranian, Muslim and Jewish populations.
Clarity is important here: Iran is a terrible, extractive regime that oppresses women, murders its own people and has tried to spread its poison around the world. No one should shed a tear for it.
Prime Minister Christopher Luxon and Foreign Minister Winston Peters put out a statement slamming the regime and merely noting that:
“We acknowledge that the actions taken overnight by the US and Israel were designed to prevent Iran from continuing to threaten international peace and security.”
It wanted negotiations to resume, but said nothing about the nature of the attack, which some, including former prime minister Helen Clark have denounced as illegal. Clark called NZ’s response a disgrace before asking “why the servility”?
That’s as may be. But international law has only ever been an idea that reaches as far as hard power allows it to, whether it be that of US, China, Russia, Iran or anyone else. Hard power has been the story of just about all of human history and international institutions, high-minded ideals and a few decades of James Taylor songs didn’t make that fact go away.
It is worth pursuing and arguing to uphold, especially for small countries such as New Zealand, but we are now in an era - especially under Trump - where the US is not shy to use its power to try to take out its enemies, even within their own borders.
Iran’s nuclear facilities were bombed, so were the Houthis. Small boats allegedly smuggling drugs have been targeted in Latin America. Islamic State targets in both Syria and Iraq have been hit. The Venezuelan president was snatched from his compound.
Given their recent experiences, the Aussie statement was a bit more pro-US than New Zealand’s. But NZ was clearly keen to stress that the regime is bad news.
“Peace through strength”, Trump has previously posted on truth social. But insofar as this may be true it will likely come at a cost. Iran has already begun launching missiles into buildings in gulf states and US military targets. There were reports Monday morning of the first US casualties - three US soldiers.
The Gulf states have marketed themselves as commercial safe harbours in the Middle East, so this will be very unwelcome - along with worries about what a new Tehran might look like.
It will also likely lead to oil and even LNG price rises if the Strait of Hormuz is closed for any length of time. Already, at time of writing, there are reports of Iranian vessels saying it is closed.
But the question is really whether chopping off the head and hoping that a new regime asserts itself will work. As with Venezuela, there so far seems little plan for post the military strikes. Trump is clearly keen to wipe out the mullahs, but he isn’t keen on any sort of invasion.
No one really knows who might emerge next or how long Trump’s attention will stay on Iran. It also seems to be assuming that there is a stable majority in favour of change.
US-led regime change of the early 2000s ended up in disaster: costly in blood, treasure and US prestige. After 20 years Afghanistan got handed back to the Taliban, while the US left Iraq in a mess - which Iran took advantage of.
Trump’s approach will be far less costly for US blood and treasure, but whether it works to achieve its goal is an open question.