Firstly, I really agree with you that war is chaos and grief, and that none of us, removed from the trauma and violence, can fully grasp its impact. But I also think that’s exactly why we should be questioning, thinking critically, and refusing to accept surface-level narratives at face value. To say “it’s too complicated to know” risks letting dangerous decisions go unchallenged.
There’s now a growing consensus in some policy and media circles that overthrowing the Iranian regime will achieve what military strikes haven’t: ending Iran’s nuclear ambitions, its regional influence, and the Islamic Republic itself. Regime change is being treated like a magic bullet. But very few people are asking the obvious: then what?
There’s no evidence to suggest that a new Iranian government, whether democratic or not, would be friendlier to Israel or the U.S. History suggests the opposite. Nationalism, not theocracy, is the dominant political force in Iran. And when outside powers intervene, especially violently, it usually unifies even deeply divided societies against a common enemy. Any future leadership will be focused above all on Iranian sovereignty—and deeply sceptical of Western intentions.
There is tragedy here. Ordinary Iranians, just like Israelis, want peace and security—preferably through diplomacy and dialogue. But the unprovoked attacks of the last week, and their justification by the U.S. -a disastrous sequence that began with Trump’s wanton violation of President Obama’s Iran deal in 2018- have convinced many Iranians that restraint, whether nuclear or otherwise, is national suicide.
So yes, the situation is horrific. But that doesn’t mean every action taken in the name of security brings us closer to peace. Sometimes, especially in the Middle East, force doesn’t solve the problem—it entrenches it.