After Israel launched strikes on Iran and President Donald Trump announced that “major combat operations” by the United States were underway, the administration set out four main objectives: prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, obliterate its ballistic missile program, destroy its naval capabilities, and weaken or topple the regime. Analysts warn the campaign does not appear short or narrowly limited and could last weeks or months.
Objective 1 — Prevent nuclear weaponization
The White House says one central aim is to ensure Iran cannot obtain a nuclear weapon. US and Israeli strikes have targeted major nuclear sites, and the administration claims Tehran’s capacity to build weapons has been severely degraded. Experts caution, however, that air strikes can set a program back by months or years but cannot entirely eliminate underlying capabilities. Marcus Schneider of the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung in Lebanon notes that technical expertise, designs, and skilled personnel survive attacks and can be rebuilt. Shahin Modarres argues Israel and the US view a nuclear-armed Iran as unacceptable and so preventing weaponization is a strategic imperative. Others, including Diba Mirzaei of GIGA, say the nuclear argument can be used as a pretext, pointing out that recent talks in Geneva produced no breakthrough and that an immediate, practical nuclear threat was not evident to all observers.
Objective 2 — Degrade or destroy ballistic missile capabilities
Iran’s missile arsenal is widely seen as a serious threat because of its ability to strike regional targets. The recent conflict showed missiles can damage Israeli and US facilities in the region. Analysts say strikes against production sites, storage facilities, supply chains and procurement lines—especially for solid fuel—can substantially degrade missile forces. Yet Schneider and Modarres both stress that technical know-how and the industrial base are hard to erase from the air; destruction of stocks and factories can be achieved, but long-term eradication of the program is unlikely. What is realistic is severe degradation, longer rebuild times, and constraints on deployment and supply.
Objective 3 — Neutralize Iran’s naval threat
Attacking Iran’s naval forces is militarily more tractable than erasing missile know-how, but it is not simple. Iran operates many small craft and asymmetric assets that complicate swift defeat. Schneider points to the proliferation of speedboats and dispersed forces as obstacles to a quick campaign. Modarres recalls the 1988 Operation Praying Mantis as precedent for large-scale US action against Iranian naval forces; if Tehran threatens freedom of navigation in the Strait of Hormuz, Washington could justify broad naval operations to keep sea lanes open. Sara Kermanian of the University of Sussex believes US strikes could severely damage Iran’s active naval units in the near term, significantly reducing their capacity to disrupt maritime traffic.
Objective 4 — Weaken or topple the regime
Trump has suggested that sustained pressure could create an opening for regime change, urging Iranians to seize any chance to replace their government. How Washington would achieve collapse without ground forces is unclear. Modarres says mass protests are possible but usually require a powerful triggering event; lingering memories of repression make spontaneous uprisings less likely unless the regime is already structurally weakened. Schneider argues that expecting airpower and external pressure alone to generate a popular revolution is unrealistic: toppling a government would probably require ground troops, prolonged conflict, or deep fractures within the regime’s elite. Reported US offers of immunity to some Revolutionary Guard members are a classic tactic to encourage defections, but analysts say it would gain traction only if combined with sustained military and economic pressure that fundamentally erodes regime cohesion.
If regime collapse does not occur
If the campaign fails to bring down the government, ordinary Iranians could suffer harsh consequences. Kermanian warns a wounded but intact state may intensify repression and crack down on groups seen as sympathetic to external pressure. The longer-term outcome will depend on whether escalation produces a negotiated settlement that reshapes relations, or whether the confrontation becomes a protracted cycle of sanctions, proxy warfare, and periodic strikes. Without a settlement, Iran risks prolonged militarization, deeper economic decline, and recurring instability across the region.
Additional reporting by Niloofar Gholami and Kersten Knipp. Edited by Ole Tangen Jr.