Unless Trump stops wavering between regime change and regime alteration, he will cripple his campaign

If US President Donald Trump wants regime change, for the new leadership in Iran that means a fight to the death while maximising the price paid by their enemies. Photo / Daniel Torok, The White House via AFP

One of America’s most distinguished soldiers, the late General Colin Powell, said the first rule of successful warfare was: “Make sure you have a specific political objective”.

United States President Donald Trump has spurned that wise advice for his onslaught against Iran.

Far from being clear or specific, the objective of his monumental campaign – involving about half of all of America’s deployable air power – tends to change by the hour.

Does he seek the downfall of the Islamic Republic and the complete overthrow of its regime? Or is Trump willing to deal with any new leaders of the existing system after the killing of its figurehead, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei?

In simple terms, does he want regime change or regime alteration?

These two goals are contradictory, yet Trump has managed to embrace both in media interviews.

He told a journalist from the Atlantic that he was ready to talk to the new post-Khamenei leadership of the Islamic Republic.

“They want to talk, and I have agreed to talk, so I will be talking to them,” said Trump. “They should have done it sooner.”

Those words suggested that he was following the Venezuela model, whereby he removed the dictator, Nicolas Maduro, but otherwise left the regime intact and immediately began dealing with the fallen leader’s successor, Delcy Rodriguez.

However, the US President later on the same day changed the goal back to full regime change, with America’s task being to clear the way for Iran’s people to tear down their rulers.

“I call upon all the patriots who yearn for freedom to seize the moment to be brave, be bold and be heroic and take back your country,” said Trump in a video message. “America is with you.”

As for any soldiers in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps who might be tempted to suppress any such uprising, Trump ordered them to “lay down your arms and receive full immunity or face certain death”.

Trump’s inability to decide why he is waging war will have profound consequences.

If his true goal is the fall of the Islamic Republic, then the post-Khamenei leadership is fighting for their lives.

They will have no possible reason to negotiate or compromise.

If America and Israel are determined to destroy them whatever happens, the only rational option for Iran’s new leaders is to inflict as much damage as possible and maximise the price paid by their enemies.

Hence, for the first time, Iran is attacking not just Israel but all of its Gulf neighbours with drones and ballistic missiles.

Given that Trump will not deploy American troops on the ground, the only way that regime change can happen is if the Iranian people rise up against their leaders.

Time and again, Trump has urged them to do exactly that. But he cannot know whether they will do his bidding: the behaviour of millions of individual Iranians is far beyond his control.

If his true goal is the end of the Islamic Republic, then Trump’s strategy amounts to a gigantic gamble on how the Iranian public will react to this campaign.

So far, there are no signs of a popular uprising, and, unless that changes, the plan will fail.

At some level, Trump seems to be aware of this.

In his mind, he probably views the option of dealing with Iran’s post-Khamenei leadership as a coherent fall-back position.

If the Iranian people decline to oblige him and fail to take the colossal risk of overthrowing their rulers, then the President will seek to impose terms – such as dismantling all remaining nuclear plants – on the existing regime under its new figureheads.

But that plan depends on the men now at the helm of Iran coming to the table and negotiating.

Why should they do so while Trump is also calling for their downfall?

If, on the same day, Trump says that his goal is both to destroy them and talk to them, the hard men in Tehran must rationally assume the worst.

Ali Larijani, the secretary of the Supreme National Security Council and perhaps the most powerful figure in post-Khamenei Iran, has already delivered a curt response.

“We will not negotiate with the United States,” he said in a blunt social media post.

For as long as Trump wavers between his two objectives, espousing one or the other according to his whims, he maximises the chance that either will fail.

This fundamental incoherence also makes it impossible for him to have any wholehearted allies apart from Israel.

What goal would America’s friends be supporting if they joined this campaign? Would they be signing up for regime change or a new deal with Khamenei’s successors? One way or the other, Trump must decide.

For now, his uniquely haphazard approach to strategy is crippling his own chances of success. Whatever Trump thinks success might mean.

Sign up to Herald Premium Editor’s Picks, delivered straight to your inbox every Friday. Editor-in-Chief Murray Kirkness picks the week’s best features, interviews and investigations. Sign up for Herald Premium here.