It is only day three of the new war involving the United States, Israel, and Iran.
The conflict has already expanded into a regional war following Iran's decision to attack Arab states that are both US allies and Iran's neighbors across the Gulf. The United Kingdom has reversed its previous refusal to allow the US to use its bases.
The war continues to escalate rapidly, with continuous news alerts arriving on my phone. I have just read a press release from US Central Command reporting that three US F-15E Strike Eagles were shot down by Kuwaiti air defenses in "an apparent friendly fire incident." By the time this article is completed, more missiles will likely have been launched and casualties may have increased.
It is far too early to predict when or how this war will end. Once initiated, wars are difficult to control. However, here are some perspectives on how the belligerents envision the conflict concluding.
Trump's definition of victory
President Trump, as usual, has expressed confidence in American power since announcing the war's onset in a video message recorded at his Mar-a-Lago residence in Florida. Unlike other presidents who might have chosen a solemn address from behind the Resolute desk in the Oval Office, Trump appeared wearing an open-neck shirt and a white baseball cap pulled low over his eyes.
He presented an extensive list of accusations, asserting that Iran has posed an imminent threat to the US since the Islamic Revolution in 1979.
Trump can change his stance, but in this speech, he outlined his conception of victory, which essentially constitutes a checklist:
"We are going to destroy their missiles and raze their missile industry to the ground. It will be totally, again, obliterated. We're going to annihilate their navy. We're going to ensure that the region's terrorist proxies can no longer destabilize the region or the world, and attack our forces, and no longer use their IEDs or roadside bombs, as they are sometimes called to, so gravely wound and kill thousands and thousands of people, including many Americans."
Trump claimed Iran was developing missiles capable of reaching the US, a statement not supported by US intelligence assessments.
He also asserted that Iran was close to developing a nuclear weapon, contradicting his own statement from the previous summer that the US had "obliterated" Iran's nuclear sites.
Trump believes that the US, alongside Israel, can cripple the regime in Tehran. If the regime does not surrender, he envisions it being so devastated that the Iranian people will have their best opportunity in generations to rise up and seize power:
"When we are finished, take over your government. It will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance for generations. For many years, you have asked for America's help, but you never got it. No president was willing to do what I am willing to do tonight. Now you have a president who is giving you what you want. So let's see how you respond."
By transferring responsibility for regime change to the Iranian people, even while encouraging them to act, Trump retains a potential exit strategy if the regime survives. However, this also implies a moral responsibility for the US to see the process through, though it remains uncertain how much this would influence a president who believes a deal is always possible.
There is no precedent for achieving regime change or winning a war against a well-armed adversary solely through air power. In 2003, the US and its allies, including the UK, deployed major ground forces into Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein. In 2011, Libya's Col Muammar Gaddafi was removed by rebel forces armed by NATO and Gulf countries and protected by their air forces. Trump is hoping the Iranian people can accomplish this themselves.
Trump's plan is a significant gamble. The odds are against bombing alone causing regime change.
Could there be an internal pro-Western coup? While not impossible, it appears highly unlikely from the perspective of day three of the war.
It is more probable that the current regime leaders will entrench themselves, launch more missiles, driven by ideology and the belief that they can endure more pain than the US, Israel, or the Arab Gulf states. Most of the suffering will be borne by the Iranian people, who have no say in the matter.
Netanyahu's calculation
Like Donald Trump, Benjamin Netanyahu has also encouraged Iranians to take matters into their own hands. However, if they cannot overcome the regime's ruthless security forces, Netanyahu's primary objective is to dismantle Iran's military capabilities and its ability to rebuild militias across the region that could threaten Israel.
For decades, Netanyahu has viewed Iran as Israel's most dangerous enemy. He believes the Islamic Republic's rulers seek to build a nuclear weapon to destroy the Jewish state.
On Sunday, the second day of the war, he stood on a rooftop in Tel Aviv, possibly the defense ministry building in the city center, and articulated his vision for the war's conclusion.
He declared that Israel and America together would achieve "what I've hoped to achieve for 40 years – to crush the regime of terror completely."
He promised to ensure this outcome becomes a reality.
Wars invariably have domestic political implications. Like Trump, Netanyahu faces elections later this year. Unlike Trump, Netanyahu's position is at risk. Many Israelis blame him for security lapses that allowed Hamas to attack on 7 October 2023. Leading Israel to a decisive victory over Iran could significantly improve his electoral prospects, potentially making him unbeatable.
Victory through survival
The killing of Iran's supreme leader and his top military advisers was a severe blow to the regime, but it does not necessarily mean its collapse.
Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and the regime's founders nearly 50 years ago designed its institutions to withstand wars and assassinations. It is not a one-man operation. Unlike the Syrian and Libyan states under Assad and Gaddafi, which were built around ruling families and collapsed when those families were removed, Iran's regime is a state system supported by a complex network of political and religious institutions with overlapping responsibilities, engineered to survive such crises.
That does not guarantee survival, but the Islamic Republic's system faces its sternest test yet and has prepared for this moment.
The regime's definition of victory is survival, which it seeks to achieve through formidable protection.
It maintains a powerful and ruthless apparatus of security, repression, and coercion. In January, its forces killed thousands of protestors following domestic unrest. As of day three of the war, there is no indication that the regime's armed forces are disintegrating, unlike Assad's forces after his flight to Moscow in December 2024.
In addition to conventional armed forces and well-equipped police, the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) plays a key role with an explicit mandate to protect the regime domestically and abroad. It serves as the muscle behind the velayat-e faqih, ship of the jurist, which is the foundational doctrine of the Islamic revolution in Iran justifying Shia religious leadership.
The IRGC is estimated to have 190,000 active-duty personnel and up to 600,000 reservists. Beyond religious doctrine, it controls much of the economy, giving its leaders financial as well as ideological reasons to remain loyal.
The IRGC is supported by the Basij, a volunteer paramilitary force with approximately 450,000 members known for their loyalty to the regime and reputation for brutality.
I witnessed the Basij in action in Tehran during protests following the disputed 2009 election, where they threatened and beat protestors with clubs and rubber truncheons. Behind them were heavily armed police and IRGC personnel. The Basij also deployed flying squads on motorcycles to suppress dissent swiftly.
Donald Trump has threatened the IRGC and Basij with "certain death," warning "it won't be pretty" unless they disarm. These threats are unlikely to sway many among the regime's armed forces.
The Islamic Republic and Shia Islam embrace the concept of martyrdom. After hours of official denials on Sunday that the supreme leader was harmed, state TV announced his death with a weeping newsreader stating he had "drunk the sweet pure draft of martyrdom."
Some analysts believe the Ayatollah proceeded with a meeting at his Tehran compound with senior advisors despite imminent threats because he sought martyrdom.
The regime retains a core of civilian loyalists. Thousands gathered in Tehran's public squares after the supreme leader's killing during the first of 40 days of mourning, lighting candles and mobile phone torches despite smoke from US and Israeli airstrikes.
Bad precedents
The Americans believe that this time, their overwhelming power, alongside Israel's, can impose regime change without causing disaster.
However, historical precedents are unfavorable. The removal of Saddam Hussein in 2003 led to prolonged conflict and the rise of jihadist extremist groups that persist today.
Libya, a country with sufficient oil wealth to provide its population with Western living standards, remains fractured and impoverished 15 years after Gaddafi's removal and death. Western nations that supported his fall largely abandoned responsibility after the country's disintegration.
Iran is a large country, nearly three times the size of Iraq, with a diverse population exceeding 90 million. Should the regime fall, the worst-case scenario involves chaos and bloodshed rivaling the civil wars that devastated Syria and Iraq.
Military action by the US and Israel is pulverising Iran's military capacities. This changes the Middle East's strategic landscape, regardless of whether the regime survives.
Many Iranians would likely welcome the regime's fall. However, replacing a forcibly removed regime with a peaceful and coherent alternative would be an immense challenge.
Trump's gamble is that this war will ultimately improve safety and stability in the Middle East. The odds against this outcome are considerable.
Trump claimed Iran was developing missiles that could reach the US, a statement that is not backed up by US intelligence assessments.
The US and Israel struck Iran on Saturday, killing the country's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
Benjamin Netanyahu has made statements encouraging Iranians to take matters into their own hands.
Thousands went onto the streets of Tehran after the killing of the Supreme Leader.
Seven of Iran's most senior leadership and defense figures. The IDF claims to have killed four of these officials in air strikes: Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Defence Council secretary Ali Shamkhani, Defence Minister Brig Gen Aziz Nasirzadeh and IRGC commander Gen Mohammad Pakpour. The two surviving officials are the President Masoud Pezeshkian and Ali Larijani, Secretary of Supreme National Security Council.
A regional map highlighting Iran in white with its name in red. Surrounding countries are labeled in grey, neighboring Iraq to the west and other Middle Eastern countries including Syria, Jordan, Israel, Gaza and Saudi Arabia, Qatar, UAE, and Oman. Bodies of water such as the Red Sea and the Gulf of Oman are marked in blue.
BBC InDepth is the home on the website and app for the best analysis, with fresh perspectives that challenge assumptions and deep reporting on the biggest issues of the day. Emma Barnett and John Simpson bring their pick of the most thought-provoking deep reads and analysis every Saturday. for the newsletter here.
