Opinion
By Yiannos Stavrinides
President Trump wants to replace Iran’s current regime with a system friendly to the United States, essentially meaning the abandonment of nuclear ambitions and an end to support for satellite regimes that advance Tehran’s theocratic agenda. According to Trump’s own rhetoric, the effort is meant to liberate the Iranian people, who have lived under repression since 1979.
This new policy stands in contrast to Trump’s earlier statements criticizing the violent overthrow of foreign leaders, as in Iraq and Libya, and emphasizing airstrikes while ruling out ground operations.
Trump is now facing sharp criticism for the risky decision to entrust regime change to internal forces he does not control, without any real assurance that the outcome will be anything more than a reshuffling of the existing power structure. By pursuing what amounts to an unconventional proxy war, Trump believes he can avoid deploying ground troops.
In what he presents as a historic shift, Trump has abandoned negotiations and sanctions in favor of direct military action against Iran. The ultimate objective is the collapse of the regime and the destruction of key infrastructure, especially its ballistic missile capabilities. For Trump, the priority is a rapid change in leadership, even if some elements of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard ultimately remain in place.
Operation “Epic Rage” began early Saturday morning with joint action by Israeli and U.S. forces. The immediate trigger was the collapse of talks after Iran rejected three U.S. demands: the immediate termination of its nuclear program, the abandonment of uranium enrichment efforts, and a break with allied regimes within 60 days.
The military campaign includes air and missile strikes that, from the outset, succeeded in eliminating top leadership figures while also encouraging Iranian protesters to continue resisting the regime. A large buildup of forces has been assembled for operations against Iran, leading to estimates that the conflict could last four to five weeks. Middle East experts, however, warn that the Revolutionary Guard regime could hold out much longer while simultaneously targeting allied interests. Nor can the possibility be ruled out that the country could descend into disorder as it transitions to a new political order, triggering widespread chaos.
A prolonged period of uncertainty would likely roil global markets and cause sharp swings in energy prices. Iran is a major oil producer and controls the Strait of Hormuz, through which roughly 20% of global oil trade passes. Analysts estimate that crude prices could rise to $100–150 per barrel, pushing global inflation up by 1–2%. Financial markets would also feel the impact, with the S&P index potentially falling about 10%, while disruptions in supply chains would drive up production costs. Geopolitically, extended instability could ignite new flare-ups in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen, threatening commercial shipping routes through the Red Sea.
All of this will remain hypothetical if military operations move quickly and the war ends soon. But if chaos is allowed to take hold, the kind of economic crisis the world experienced in the 1970s cannot be ruled out.
