u/Esmail-Qaani

The “Iran Problem” is that the Islamic Republic is a revolutionary apocalyptic Anti-western theocracy that has systematically destabilized every country in the Middle East since 1979, to Iran’s own detriment. These destabilizing activities go beyond the nuclear program. Under-discussed is the Islamic Republic’s support for insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan. Hundreds, probably thousands, of US casualties in those two wars can be directly linked to Iranian activities. Iran fueling the insurgency in Iraq further destabilized the country, stoked sectarian conflict that directly led to ISIS which has carried out atrocity after atrocity across the Middle East, Europe, and Africa.

The Iran problem has a pretty straight-forward, but painful, solution: the removal and replacement of the regime in Iran with one that is, if not democratic and pluralistic, at least rational enough to prioritize Iran's national interests over spreading the Islamic Revolution.

For a long time, eggheads in Western Capitals have theorized that if the Islamic Republic were integrated into the world system, it would moderate and “become a normal country” again. We have tried this at different times. Not just with the JCPOA but also with re-engagement under Clinton and during Bush’s first term. In both cases we saw the Islamic Republic crack down even harder on internal dissent and Ali Khamenei reform-proof the regime by shutting out the system’s more rational voices from power. The IRGC, with its radical, apocalyptic mission of spreading the Islamic revolution and ushering in the return of the Mahdi, are now firmly in control of the Iranian political system and economy. There is no “velvet revolution” coming.

Realist analysts and the regime’s hardliners argued for a long time that the Islamic Republic should have just built the atom bomb by now. It is the ultimate deterrent. Khamenei chose to be cautious. He wanted a threshold nuclear capability, to be able to quickly move towards weaponization if he gave the order but with the ability to hide behind the web of proxies and nuclear agreements to stay out of direct military conflict. It is perfectly clear now that Khamenei’s attempt to have his cake and eat it have been disastrous for his regime, the Iranian people, the region, and his own life. The survivors of the regime's top brass understand this as well.

I am of the opinion that Trump killing the JCPOA in his first term will go down a massive and historic event. If there was any trust between the Iranian regime and the USA that could lead to this long-prophesied re-integration and détente, it’s long dead now, and tearing up the JCPOA killed it. Removing the prospect of a deal puts America into a choice: eventually accept Iran as a nuclear power, or take military action to end the threat for good. I will explain why I do not believe “limited” war as we have seen will solve the problem, and the choice will escalate to surrender on the nuclear file and “containment” of the regime or all-out regime change war on Iranian soil.

Despite American and Israeli successes in Operations Rising Lion and Epic Fury, the regime remains intact and its grip on Iran, reinforced by unimaginable brutality, is just as strong as it ever was. The New York Times recently reported that Iran is believed to retain around 70% of its missile capabilities, 50% of its drone capabilities, and is reconstituting its military capabilities more rapidly than the US anticipated. Furthermore, Iran retains its uranium. Mojtaba Khamenei has decreed that the highly enriched uranium will not leave Iran and the regime retains the knowledge and capability to enrich at any time. If there was any doubt left in the Islamic Republic about getting the bomb, I believe they now hold it to be the only way to guarantee their regime’s survival in what they see as a cycle of conflict that leads to regime change, just like the periodic military campaigns against Iraq in the 1990s after Desert Storm. When you add in that the Strait of Hormuz has turned into an Iranian lake, a sober assessment of the war is that Iran is winning and very paranoid. Iran’s capabilities, though damaged, will be quickly reconstituted and Iran is in a stronger geopolitical position today than before the war.

I don’t think any deal is coming. Any deal would require the Iranians to meaningfully roll back the nuclear project to a point that the bomb would be out of reach and give back the Strait of Hormuz. The regime is not just going to give up their only leverage for promises of lifting sanctions that, as the death of the JCPOA showed, can be slapped back on unilaterally to devastating effect at any time. Similarly, the United States or Israel can resume armed conflict at any time. I think a rational Iranian position would be to drag this out as long as possible, give as little as possible in any negotiations, and rebuild their capabilities to make further rounds of armed conflict unpalatable for America. They can wait out the current administration. Eventually, a more dovish president will get into power, or maybe the US will be occupied with Taiwan, or America’s fiscal problems will eventually catch up to her. In any case, it would give the Islamic Republic the opportunity to quickly attain nuclear weapons status. By that point, it’ll be too late.

Some (very dumb) people have argued that if Iran gets back to advancing the nuclear project towards a bomb, the US and Israel can get right back to bombing it or that we can just send in Call of Duty special forces to magically dig out a metric ton of uranium and get it out of the country. Let’s not even bother with the special forces idea, which would be a suicide mission. This mentality of limited forever war ignores the fact that we’ve already tried to destroy the nuclear program from the air twice and neither attempt has meaningfully succeeded. At best, we’ve set them back months. At worst, we have convinced them they need the bomb. The Iranians at the same time are learning and adapting. The NYT reports that Iran is getting more adept at spotting US attacks coming. They will likely adapt and harden and decentralize the nuclear project so as to make it all but impossible to destroy from the air. Successive air-sea campaigns against Iran will have diminishing returns.

So we are in a bind. War is costly but peace will likely lead to an Iranian bomb within a matter of years. The only way to really stop them is to topple the regime. Hawks and Iranian dissidents have argued for military assistance so the Iranian people can topple the regime themselves in a civil war. I don’t think this is possible for a number of reasons. Even if we try it, it will only cement further in the mind of the Islamic Republic that the US seeks regime change but can’t stomach the costs, which leads them to look for someone else to bear the cost of it. In my analysis, the only real way to topple this regime is a ground invasion of Iran to topple the government.

An “Operation Iranian Freedom” could be very costly in lives and money but it would finally permanently solve the Iran Problem as well as finally put the Middle East on a path to stability. With the Islamic Republic out of the picture, Hezbollah, the Houthis, and other assorted terrorist groups would wither on the vine. It would lead to real peace. I don’t think the initial invasion would be particularly costly. The US coalition toppled Saddam within one month, suffering fewer than a thousand casualties. Iran is larger and better prepared than Iraq, sure. And, yes, drones have reshaped the battlefield. Russia has taken heavy casualties in Ukraine due to drones. However, Russia is fighting with contested skies. America's air dominance and more sophisticated kill chain make it much, much easier to target and destroy Iran's drone stockpiles, operators, and command chain. The US would likely take thousands of casualties in an invasion of Iran but I don’t think it would be a Vietnam-style bloodbath. The big risk is to the energy facilities on either side of the Persian Gulf. I think this is one reason why Israeli so badly wants to strike Iranian energy targets. Iran will likely retaliate against the Arab countries, and Israel may want to cross that red line now so as to clear the obstacles keeping the US out of a ground war.

The occupation and reconstruction of post-war Iran would be the hard part. The reconstruction could be funded with Gulf money and Iran’s own resource revenues. As for the costs of the American operation, it would make sense for the new Iran to give the US some portion of Iran’s oil revenues to pay them back the costs of the operation, at least for a time. It may sting to give half of Iran’s oil profits to America but as things stand right now. Iranians receive zero from the oil. 100% of the oil goes to funding the regime and international terrorism. 50% of the oil profits reaching Iranians is better than the 0% that they are getting now. Unlike Iraq or Afghanistan, Iranians are literate, politically engaged, and there are enough secularist Iranian youths willing to fight Islamism that the new regime could be able to police itself and put down IRGC insurgents after a few years. Of course, this is speculative.

The human toll would be huge. A lot of civilians would probably die in the invasion. People throw around extremely large numbers of dead civilians in the Iraq War. But this is mostly from the sectarian civil war which was stoked by the Iranian Regime. Anywhere from 7,000 to 15,000 civilians were killed in Operation Iraqi Freedom. This is roughly as many civilians as the Islamic Republic killed in a single night in January 2026.

All of this is to say, I think America is in a bind. She cannot win the current stalemate. The blockade primarily hurts the Iranian people and the regime doesn’t to care about the Iranian people. North Korea has shown that brutal dictatorships can survive through brute force, even in economic collapse that impoverishes their population. A ground war would solve the problem outright but has a lot of up-front costs. Let's not begin to talk about how an overstretched America would make Taiwan more vulnerable. The Iranian Regime would keep the Strait of Hormuz blocked in a real war and would probably try to take out Gulf energy on its way down which could cause a worse global economic crisis. The costs may be manageable but they could also be very high, depending on Iranian willingness to fight or their unknown military capabilities. The alternative, I see is a cycle of recurrent air and sea conflict that would render the Gulf’s energy useless, rapidly deplete American munitions, weakening Taiwan, and lead to a nuclear-armed Iran in the short-to-medium term anyways.

I tend to think that Washington will try its hardest to pursue half-measures with bombing campaigns in hopes that the Islamic Republic will surrender or magically collapse on its own. America tried and failed with this strategy against Saddam Hussein’s regime in the 1990s. I think it will fail even harder this time against the Islamic Republic and the core dilemma will remain. Either we will have a nuclear Islamic Republic or real ground war. My gut is telling me the USA will eventually be forced to enter a ground war.

Please give me your feedback and tell me how you see it.

Hello. I have seen conflicting information on this topic. I have previously reached out to the Interests Section in DC but they were unable to give me a clear answer and instead referred me to a website which is inaccessible.

I have read online that the Islamic Republic will not recognize the marriage of an Iranian man overseas to a non-Muslim woman unless she converts to Islam. If this is how the law is implemented, it would not be in line with the Shariah of Islam which, as I understand, allows such marriages to women from the People of the Book.

Because the non-citizen wife of an Iranian man is eligible for Iranian citizenship, this is a detail which could have important implications for spouses of Iranians. If you have details, please share the information here.

Does the Shi'a jurisprudence differ in this regard?

Hello. I have seen conflicting information on this topic. I have previously reached out to the Interests Section in DC but they were unable to give me a clear answer and instead referred me to a website which is inaccessible.

I have read online that the Islamic Republic will not recognize the marriage of an Iranian man overseas to a non-Muslim woman unless she converts to Islam. If this is how the law is implemented, it would not be in line with the Shariah of Islam which, as I understand, allows such marriages to women from the People of the Book.

Because the non-citizen wife of an Iranian man is eligible for Iranian citizenship, this is a detail which could have important implications for spouses of Iranians. If you have details, please share the information here.

Does the Shi'a Jurisprudence differ in this regard?