Insanity on a Global Scale: The US-Israeli Bombing of Iran

by John Whitehead

—

US foreign policy perfectly illustrates the saying that “the definition of insanity is doing the same thing again and again expecting a different result.” 

The United States, together with Israel, launched a bombing campaign against Iran on Saturday, February 28. The bombing reportedly struck an array of military and government-related sites across Iran, including the capital, Tehran.

Iranian state media, citing the Red Crescent, have reported that more than 200 people have been killed and more than 700 injured. US President Donald Trump has claimed that the bombing killed Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.

Iran has retaliated with drone and missile strikes against Israel and targets in Bahrain, Jordan, Kuwait, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates. Some of these strikes targeted US military forces. At least one person in the United Arab Emirates has been killed in the Iranian retaliation.

The bombing comes after a US military build-up in the Middle East and less than a year after a US-Israeli bombing campaign against Iran in 2025. The bombing also comes amidst significant civil unrest in Iran. Protests, both nonviolent and violent, against the Iranian government in January of this year were met with violent state repression. In at least 19 cities, state security forces responded to protestors with gunfire. The Iranian government has acknowledged that thousands of people have been killed, including hundreds of state security personnel.

In a video statement, President Trump said the bombing’s objective is “to defend the American people by eliminating imminent threats from the Iranian regime.” Trump cited past Iranian support for terrorism and particularly emphasized Iran’s alleged ambitions to build nuclear weapons. He said, “It has always been the policy of the United States, in particular my administration, that this terrorist regime can never have a nuclear weapon.”

Trump alleged that the Iranian government was still pursuing nuclear weapons.  He laid out uncompromising goals for the bombing campaign: 

We're going to destroy their missiles and raze their missile industry to the ground. It will be totally again obliterated. We're going to annihilate their navy. We're going to ensure that the region's terrorist proxies can no longer destabilize the region or the world and attack our forces…And we will ensure that Iran does not obtain a nuclear weapon.

He also seemed to call for the overthrow of the current Iranian regime, declaring that the Iranian armed forces and police “must lay down your weapons.” Trump also told the Iranian people, “When we are finished, take over your government.”

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made a similar statement, saying the bombing campaign could “create the conditions for the brave Iranian people to take their destiny into their own hands.”

Why the Bombing Campaign Is a Grave Mistake 

Much is unclear at present, including how long the US-Israeli bombing campaign will last, what long-term Iranian retaliation will be, or how much the violence may escalate. 

What is clear, though, is that the United States and Israel bombing Iran is highly unlikely to bring peace to the Middle East, make life better for the Iranian people, or reduce the threat from nuclear weapons. 

The current bombing campaign is unlikely to have such results for the following reasons:

First, if the US and Israeli goal is to stop Iran from building nuclear weapons, bombing Iran would seem an ineffective way to achieve this goal. The evidence for the bombing’s ineffectiveness is the fact that the United States and Israel bombed Iran less than nine months ago with the aim of thwarting Iranian nuclear ambitions. 

If that earlier bombing campaign was so inadequate that another campaign is already required, what reason is there to believe the second campaign will be more successful? If the second campaign is not successful, will there be a third one? Will the United States and Israel adopt a practice of regular, periodic bombing of Iran with no end in sight? Who benefits from this, other than arms manufacturers? 

Second, if the US and Israeli goal is not just stopping Iranian nuclear activities but regime change in Iran, then bombing alone will probably not bring about that goal either. If Khamenei has been killed, he can be replaced by another member of the Iranian ruling elite. Bombing can kill people and destroy infrastructure, but changing a country’s government requires some opposing force on the ground that can take over control of the country. 

Regime change in Iran would probably require a ground invasion of Iran by the military forces of the United States, Israel, or both. Or an alternative path to regime change might be (as Trump and Netanyahu’s statements seem to advocate) for some Iranians to rebel against the government, with support from the United States and Israel. 

Given that many Iranian protestors were killed earlier this year in the regime's violent crackdown on protests, it is hard to guess how likely Iranians are to outright rebel. Also, given that the call to rebellion is coming from world leaders whose good will toward Iranian civilians is dubious at best, it may make protestors fear that voicing their grievances against the regime will only make them more vulnerable to being labeled as tools of Iran's foreign enemies. 

It would be safe to assume, though, that any new wave of protests, or outright rebellion, would be extremely bloody. A ground invasion would only further exacerbate these same issues, with a new government being even more likely to be labeled a puppet state of Israel or the United States. 

Third, regime change in Iran is unlikely to result in a better, more just government. This same story has played out too many times before for there to be illusions on this point: regime change frequently leads to chaos, civil war, new tyrannies, or some combination of these evils. What reason is there to think regime change in Iran will be any different?

Fourth, the larger implications for world peace of bombing Iran, let alone some larger war with Iran, are ominous. US policy towards countries with possible nuclear ambitions has followed a consistent pattern: 

Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq tried to acquire nuclear weapons, failed to acquire them, and ultimately was overthrown by the United States. Muammar Qaddafi’s regime in Libya tried to acquire nuclear weapons, gave up its pursuit, and ultimately was overthrown by the United States. Iran made an agreement with the United States to stop its own pursuit of nuclear weapons, at least temporarily, only to see the United States reject that agreement and eventually bomb Iran in an apparent attempt to overthrow its government.

Other countries observing this pattern can draw clear lessons from it. One would be “Don’t make agreements with the United States.” Another would be “Acquire nuclear weapons as quickly as possible—they are insurance against regime change.” The US and Israeli bombing of Iran may end up encouraging the spread of nuclear weapons.    

Bombing Iran is unlikely to accomplish much beyond what it has already done, namely, killing people. The United States and Israel must end their campaign against Iran.