Missiles Cannot Construct Democracy in Iran
by: Gabriella Novak, Co-Founder
At 9:48 in the morning in Iran, on February 28, 2026, the Israeli and American armed forces launched a series of coordinated airstrikes against Tehran and several other cities across Iran. President Trump addressed the conflict in a video on Truth Social, declaring that Iran had continued to develop its nuclear program and urging the Iranian people to “take over your government.”1 Carrying out the attack without Congressional approval and United Nations Security Council authorization, President Trump initiated a war whose long-term outcomes seem strikingly unclear. While U.S. operations in Venezuela were quick and relatively successful, their objective, the capture and arrest of President Nicolás Maduro, was far more concrete. With a broader, far more ambiguous objective in Iran, the outcome of U.S. intervention remains deeply uncertain.
While framed as a response to Iran’s growing nuclear ambitions, this attack seems to align much more with a war of choice, not a war of necessity. Under the UN Charter, force is only permissible in self-defense against an armed attack or with explicit authorization from the Security Council.2 Preventive wars, contrastingly, are launched at an opponent’s most vulnerable moment to avert a potential future threat. The Trump administration has struggled to articulate what imminent threat would have made this war one of necessity, suggesting that the strikes reflect a strategic choice rather than a necessarily urgent act of self-defense.
Even if the objective is “regime change,”3 the methods of achieving this have been historically unsuccessful. For instance, despite $7 billion spent by both Presidents Biden and Trump on airstrikes aimed at toppling the Houthis in Yemen, the effort failed without ground forces.4 However, deploying American troops on the ground in Iran,5 as was done in Afghanistan and Iraq, would not only reject the “America first” campaign promises that propelled Trump to his presidency, but would also risk the lives of thousands of American soldiers, burden the pockets of the average American tax payer, and leave the American people unrepresented in the decision to go to war due to a lack of congressional approval. There is something incredibly ironic in a foreign president demanding governmental accountability in Iran while evading similar accountability to his own citizens.
Understanding the structure of the Iranian government is essential for assessing the likelihood of regime change. While currently a 3-person leadership committee has taken charge in Iran, the traditional power structure in Iran places ultimate religious and political authority in the hands of the Supreme Leader. The Supreme Leader appoints six of the twelve members of the Guardian Council, while the Majlis, Iran’s parliamentary body, selects the remaining six. The Guardian Council ensures that all laws comply with Sharia and the constitution and also vets political candidates, including those seeking election to the Assembly of Experts, the body tasked with electing the Supreme Leader and overseeing his authority. Although the Iranian state incorporates some republican elements, instituted after the 1979 Revolution, which overthrew the pro-Western monarchy in favor of an anti-Western theocratic Islamic Republic, the Guardian Council’s control over candidate eligibility tightly constrains political competition. The president, elected by the people and serving as head of government, can draft the state budget, initiate legislation, and select cabinet members (subject to Majlis approval), yet holds limited power relative to the Supreme Leader. Consequently, Iran’s highly centralized power structure makes the state far more resilient to external attempts at systemic political change than many outside observers assume.
In fact, foreign intervention may strengthen rather than weaken some of the most hardline political elements within Iran. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) controls a significant portion of the Iranian economy and is deeply rooted in anti-West ideology. U.S. intervention in Iran could actually improve the IRGC’s legitimacy, allowing the military to present itself as a defender against foreign imperialism. Resultingly, it is highly plausible that regime change will not be the outcome President Trump anticipates. Instead of democratization, a shift from clerical rule to military dominance is likely to be the result. The Iranian regime would not necessarily collapse; rather, its power would be relocated within the existing regime.
Calls for regime change often overlook the fragmented nature of the regime’s domestic opposition. While diaspora communities have taken to the streets in solidarity, as they watch the conflict unfold from afar, internally, Iran’s dissenting groups remain deeply disorganized, something President Trump did not account for when he left the revolution in the hands of the people. Although they share the goal of overthrowing the Iranian regime, pro-Shah monarchists, anti-monarchist factions, and various ethnic and religious minority groups are persistently divided by factional infighting. No political movement capable of organizing mass resistance and governmental rupture currently exists. Without organization, the prospect of a stable democratic transition remains a distant reality.
Meanwhile, the price of human lives continues to be paid. A U.S. Tomahawk missile recently struck a girls' school in Minab, reportedly killing a minimum of 175 schoolgirls and injuring many others.6 Yet again, the bodies of ordinary people who have no involvement in nuclear programs or military infrastructure are being carried out from the debris. As history has shown time and time again, when warfare is treated as a remedy, the lives of innocent people are inevitably placed at risk. Iran itself, however, is far older than any government that currently rules it. Across thousands of years of dynastic change, invasion, and political upheaval, what has sustained Iran is the resilience of its people and culture, not the imposition of external power.
History repeatedly shows that regime change from the outside is rarely a winning strategy for effective change on the inside. The Iranian people have fought for and reshaped their political destiny before. If they do so again, it will not be because a global superpower demanded it from the sky. It will be because the Iranian people themselves chose to organize and reshape their future.
What comes next is uncertain but one thing is clear: missiles may destroy buildings, but they cannot construct a democracy in Iran.
Footnotes
1 The White House, “President Donald J. Trump on the United States Military Major Combat Operations in Iran,” YouTube video, 8:07, February 28, 2026, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-E7DIctrzo
2United Nations, Repertory of Practice of United Nations Organs: Charter of the United Nations — Chapter VII, Article 51, Codification Division Publications, last updated August 23, 2016, accessed March 9, 2026, https://legal.un.org/repertory/art51.shtm
3 United States, White House, “Peace Through Strength: President Trump Launches Operation Epic Fury to Crush Iranian Regime, End Nuclear Threat,” March 1, 2026, The White House, accessed March 9, 2026, https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/2026/03/peace-through-strength-president-trump-launches-operation-epic-fury-to-crush-iranian-regime-end-nuclear-threat/
4The New York Times, “The $7 Billion We Wasted Bombing a Country We Couldn’t Find on a Map,” May 17, 2025, The New York Times, accessed March 9, 2026, https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/17/opinion/yemen-war-trump.html
5 Arash Azizi, “Iran’s Likeliest Near Future,” The Atlantic, March 1, 2026, accessed March 9, 2026, https://www.theatlantic.com/international/2026/03/irans-likeliest-near-future/686202/
6 United Nations Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner, “UN Experts Strongly Condemn Deadly Missile Strike on Girls’ School in Iran, Call for Independent Investigation,” press release, March 6, 2026, accessed March 9, 2026, https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2026/03/un-experts-strongly-condemn-deadly-missile-strike-girls-school-iran-call