What might victory in the Iran conflict look like?

A month and a half has passed since joint U.S. and Israeli airstrikes on Iran began with the stated goal of preventing the world’s largest state sponsor of terrorism from developing nuclear weapons.

Iran’s military has been decimated and its nuclear program has been set back years, or possibly even decades, according to some estimates.

Ayatollah Ali Hosseini Khamenei the Islamic cleric who ruled the country with an iron fist for nearly four decades, is dead after being killed in an airstrike.

His death creates a power vacuum that western leaders hope will be filled by less extreme factions.

More than a dozen U.S. military personnel have been killed in the campaign, along with more than 20 Israelis and 3,000 Iranians-about half of the latter being civilians, according to some media reports.

Iran has not agreed to forgo future missile attacks on Israel or its fellow Arab neighbors. It has not agreed to cease its proxy activities.

And the Strait of Hormuz, a key shipping lane in the Persian Gulf vital to global commerce-remains mostly closed despite a U.S. blockade of Iranian ships.

But there appears to be a faint glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel.

The Trump administration and Iranian officials are reportedly in the early stages of agreeing to a new round of talks via Pakistan aimed at reopening the straits.

The talks also reportedly include a U.S. proposal to halt Tehran’s nuclear program for another 20 years.

Also, Israeli officials have begun talks with Lebanese officials about ending the fighting in Lebanon. Israel is trying to destroy the Iranian terrorist proxy, Hezbollah, which is based in that country.

But those negotiations could easily fail, just as previous efforts did.

So, what happens then?

Baltimore Post-Examiner spoke with several foreign policy analysts to get their thoughts on the conflict.

What would victory look like? 

“Victory in Iran would look like the straits are open and the nuclear threat confined-precisely the situation when the Iran nuclear agreement (that Trump tore up) was in place and respected,” said Ken Adelman, who served as President Ronald Reagan’s Arms Control Director from 1983-87.

Harry Kazianis, who is President and Editor-In-Chief of 19FortyFive.com, the world’s most trafficked defense and military website, said reopening the straits is the key to victory.

“The fear that Iran could start shooting at ocean-going vessels carrying oil has created a psychology of fear around the Strait of Hormuz. Team Trump needs to restore a sense of trust that any ship that navigates the Strait will be protected and granted safe passage.

“For me, that is what victory is: a degraded Iran where ships go through the strait as they did back in February. And so far, that does not look easy to accomplish, unless the U.S. Navy escorts ships through the Strait and stays on station for the foreseeable future.”  

Peter Kohanloo, who is president of the Iranian American Majority, said victory would likely mean the formation of a pro-western government.

“President Trump has consistently called for Tehran to stop backing its militant proxies such as Hezbollah, Hamas, the Houthi rebels, and the Shia militias in Iraq; to end its enrichment of uranium and to hand over any highly enriched uranium it already possesses; to abandon its long range ballistic missile program that could be used for nuclear weapons; and, most recently, to open the Strait of Hormuz to all ships without interference.

“The Islamic Revolutionary Guards, who effectively control Iran now, are unlikely to accept these demands, which would basically ensure the regime’s demise. Since multiple rounds of negotiations have failed to produce any meaningful agreement, the only way President Trump can realistically achieve his goals is through a regime change that would return political power to the pro-American population of Iran.”

Is real regime change possible?

“No,” Adelman said. “Regime change means a new regime (obviously), but this is the same old leaders in charge of the same old state of Iran.”

Kazianis echoed similar sentiments.

“At this point, it seems we are stuck with a government that will strive once again for something close to nuclear weapons capacity and likely be rearmed by Russia, Iran, and North Korea. And that means, in a few years, we may have to do this all over again, if we want to maintain the status quo.”

Kohanloo said despite difficulties, regime change is possible due to internal chaos in Iran.

“Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei’s death was a huge blow because he had the final word in the regime’s hierarchy. Now, it is not entirely clear who has the final say within the Islamic Republic. This makes it very difficult to achieve any agreement with the regime. The rivalries and infighting among the different power players in Iran, as well as the rapidly deteriorating economic situation, make regime change more possible than ever before.”

Could the Iran campaign turn into another long-term Mideast conflict similar to Iraq and Afghanistan? 

“No,” Adelman said. “Even Trump in his quasi-demented state does not want U.S. soldiers on the ground fighting an organized army, or actually armies, in Iran. No one advocates that!”

Kazianis disagreed.

“Yes.” “Boots on the ground are possible if we can’t use the U.S. Navy to credibly guarantee passage in the Strait. That would mean we would have to take the islands and narrow passages around the Strait and go maybe 100-200 miles into Iran proper to create a buffer around the Strait. Still, Iran’s drones can still outrange such an occupation and will still be a problem.”

Kohanloo brushed aside comparisons to Iraq, noting Iran is politically and culturally distinct from the other countries in the region.

“It is unlikely that Iran will become another Iraq. Iraq involved a massive nation building project due to the dissolution of the Iraqi state. Iran will not require nation-building because it has been a coherent nation for millenia.

“Furthermore, the most popular and trusted opposition leader, Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi, has publicly assured the Iranian people that only government officials who were directly responsible for crimes against the Iranian people would be brought to justice. The bureaucracy, police, and national army (Artesh) would largely stay intact, thus ensuring a relatively smooth transition to a democratic system in Iran.”