By Ladi Ayodeji
In the wider world, it is fair to say that almost nobody expected the recent U.S.–Israel attack on Iran last weekend, except perhaps the main actors themselves, who had been negotiating amid threats, pressure and brinkmanship connected to the war in Gaza.
This latest conflict appears larger in scale and potentially more brutal than the 12-day confrontation between Israel and Iran some months ago. It also seems clear that the objective often mentioned in discussions about this war, regime change in Iran, would be extremely difficult if not impossible to achieve without prolonged ground battles between a U.S.–Israel coalition and Iranian forces. Air strikes alone are unlikely to bring about regime change in a country that has been ruled by powerful Ayatollahs for more than four decades.
Iran is not Libya, Iraq or Yemen, where foreign military intervention contributed to the collapse of existing governments. It is a far more entrenched state with significant military capability and a political system that has remained cohesive under an Islamic revolutionary ideology enforced by strict religious laws for nearly five decades.
Earlier confrontations have shown that Iran also maintains influence through regional proxy groups such as Hezbollah, Hamas and the Houthis. These networks give Iran strategic depth and help explain why it has survived years of severe economic sanctions and political isolation. To me, this suggests that Iran still has considerable military capacity and resilience, even when facing adversaries supported by the United States.
Iran’s ability to retaliate became clear when it responded to heavy bombardments by striking U.S. military installations in the Gulf and launching missiles and drones toward Israeli territory. The persistence of the Iranian system, even after the loss of key military figures, shows a level of institutional strength that should not be underestimated. Israel may have a clear advantage in intelligence, demonstrated by its ability to target Iranian leaders, but it has not been able to completely stop the flow of missiles and drones directed at its territory.
Although Iran has been weakened by earlier clashes and by the impact of the current campaign, it remains a dangerous adversary. The conflict also carries the risk of escalation. Iran has the ability to pull regional actors, particularly U.S. allies in the Gulf, into the confrontation. If that happens, the conflict could expand and potentially involve larger powers such as Russia or China.
There are also broader lessons in all of this. History shows that oppressive systems rarely last forever. Movements built on violence and repression eventually face consequences. Groups that terrorize civilians, whether insurgent movements, terrorist organizations or criminal networks destabilizing countries like Nigeria, should understand that their actions cannot continue indefinitely without accountability.
The same lesson applies elsewhere in the world. Authoritarian regimes that focus more on building military strength than improving the lives of their people often trap their societies in cycles of isolation and fear. When leaders spend national resources preparing for imagined future wars instead of developing their economies, ordinary citizens pay the price.
Iran’s long-standing hostility toward Israel has also shaped the present conflict. Iranian leaders have repeatedly spoken about eliminating Israel, and statements like these reinforce Israel’s belief that it faces an existential threat. From that perspective, Israel believes it has the right to take pre-emptive actions to defend itself, and the United States continues to support its ally.
At the same time, history suggests that real political change rarely succeeds when it is imposed from outside. In most cases, lasting transformation happens when people within a society demand reform and greater freedom themselves.
Iran’s government has long been accused of suppressing dissent and restricting basic freedoms. These internal tensions have contributed to the country’s complicated standing in international politics. Many governments appear reluctant to publicly sympathize with Iranian leadership during moments of crisis because of the regime’s strained relationships with much of the world.
The limited reaction from world leaders following the killing of Iranian leadership figures reflects this reality. It shows just how isolated the Iranian regime has become in global politics and how divided international opinion remains about its leadership.
*Ladi Ayodeji, marriage counselor, author, media expert and philosopher, can be reached on 09059243004, WhatsApp only.