Iranian clerics on warpath

As the protest in Iran turns violent with death toll already over two thousand since the last part of December 2025, the US has been drawn into the turmoil as Iran has threatened to strike American bases in the middle east and beyond if it attempts to intervene. The question of whether the United States will intervene militarily in Iran to halt bloodshed by the Khamenei-led regime goes far beyond humanitarian outrage. It cuts to the heart of global power politics, regional security, and the limits of American resolve in an increasingly multipolar world. Iran’s clerical establishment has repeatedly shown that it will not hesitate to deploy force-guns, tanks, mass arrests-to suppress dissent. Yet history cautions that moral indignation alone has rarely been sufficient to trigger decisive American intervention. For Washington, Iran represents a uniquely complex challenge. Unlike Iraq or Libya, Iran is not a collapsed state nor an isolated dictatorship. It possesses a sizeable military, a hardened internal security apparatus, regional proxy networks, and deep strategic partnerships with Russia and China. Any U.S. move to directly confront or overthrow the Khamenei regime would therefore carry risks of escalation well beyond Iran’s borders. The larger uncertainty lies in how Russia and China would respond. Both have invested heavily in Iran as a counterweight to American influence. A U.S.-led blockade of Iran, for instance, would almost certainly provoke a strategic pushback from Moscow and Beijing, framing the conflict as yet another example of Western overreach. Both Russia and China are less likely to engage the United States in a direct military confrontation, but their involvement could take subtler but no less consequential forms. If the United States were to initiate decisive military action against Iran, Israel would almost certainly be drawn in-if not as a formal co-belligerent, then as a strategic partner providing intelligence, logistical support, and possibly direct strikes. Tel Aviv views Iran not merely as an adversary but as an existential threat, particularly due to Tehran’s nuclear ambitions and its backing of militant groups across the Middle East. The participation of America’s allies would also be far from automatic. European powers, scarred by the consequences of past regime-change wars, remain deeply cautious. While they may support diplomatic pressure, sanctions, or limited military measures, a full-scale effort to dismantle Iran’s theocratic system would divide even Washington’s closest partners. Regional allies, meanwhile, would weigh their support against the danger of retaliation and prolonged instability. Yet the stakes for the United States are immense. A successful regime change in Iran-however defined-would dramatically alter the balance of power in the Middle East. It would weaken militant networks, disrupt rival power blocs, and reaffirm U.S. military supremacy at a time when that dominance is increasingly questioned. Politically, such an outcome would also reshape the legacy of any American president who presided over it. For Donald Trump, it would recast his image from that of an unconventional disruptor to a decisive, strategically audacious leader who redrew the global chessboard. Still, history offers sobering lessons. Regime change is easier to proclaim than to manage. The collapse of an autocratic system does not guarantee stability, democracy, or peace. Iran’s future, like that of many nations before it, would ultimately depend less on foreign firepower than on the will and unity of its own people.