US–Israel Strike on Iran Cast as High-Risk Regime-Change Gambit, Chinese Digest of US Think Tank Views Says

A high-stakes bet with no clear endgame

A Chinese-language digest of U.S. think tank commentary argues that a reported joint U.S.–Israel operation against Iran amounts to a legal and strategic gamble aimed at regime change. Published on Huxiu (虎嗅) via the IPP评论 WeChat account, the analysis says former U.S. President Donald Trump purportedly authorized large-scale strikes designed to damage Iran’s core security and political institutions. To what end? And at what cost? The article contends there was no articulated imminent threat, no detailed post-regime plan, and acknowledged risks to U.S. forces in the region—raising questions about legality, strategy, and domestic political support in the United States.

Escalation pathways across the region

The experts cited argue Iran faces what it sees as an existential threat and would likely respond with its full missile arsenal and proxy network. Reportedly, early retaliation included strikes that disrupted regional air traffic and slowed shipping through the Strait of Hormuz—signals of how quickly a localized operation could widen into a broader conflict. Iran-backed groups from Iraq’s Kataib Hezbollah to Yemen’s Houthis are described as poised to enter the fight, while Lebanon’s Hezbollah is being cautioned by Beirut not to escalate further. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have condemned Iranian attacks that allegedly caused civilian casualties, and a pivotal question looms: will Gulf states open their airspace to facilitate U.S. operations, or hold back?

Can airstrikes trigger internal collapse?

According to the digest, protests and air power alone are unlikely to topple a regime held together by the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). The piece floats the prospect of “IRGCistan”: an Iran nominally fronted by a new symbolic leader but effectively controlled by the IRGC. That could yield three divergent arcs—initially harsher repression and regional brinkmanship; a swift pivot to negotiations for sanctions relief to shore up domestic legitimacy; or a chaotic struggle for power that tempts external intervention. This is “not a typical preemptive strike,” the analysis says, but a bid to exploit perceived regime fragility to catalyze internal change—an outcome far from assured.

U.S. politics, law, and the risk of a long war

The article criticizes the lack of pre-briefing to Congress and allies (beyond Israel) and notes that an explicit regime-change objective was reportedly declared only after operations had begun. Polls have long shown limited American appetite for a new Middle East war, it adds, posing political risks at home if the campaign drags on without decisive results. The experts warn of asymmetric retaliation, including potential threats against senior U.S. officials, which could test the Secret Service and federal law enforcement. The gravest danger? A grinding, open-ended conflict that fails to trigger transformative change inside Iran yet exacts mounting regional, economic, and political costs.