US President Donald Trump wants regime change enabled by Iranians from within, but the objective has made the war an existential crisis for Iran and put it on total war mode, making it extremely hard to contain the conflict, according to General (Retired) Sir Nick Carter, a former Chief of the Defence Staff of the UK.
US President Donald Trump wants regime change enabled by Iranians from within, but this has made the war an existential crisis for Iran and put it into total‑war mode, making the conflict extremely hard to contain, according to General (Retired) Sir Nick Carter, a former Chief of the Defence Staff of the United Kingdom.
The United States and Israel on Saturday
launched an offensive against Iran that targeted Iran’s political and military leadership. Trump urged the “great, proud people of Iran” to “take over your government” once the operation was over.
“It will be yours to take. This will be probably your only chance for generations,” Trump said in an address after the offensive began.
Iran early on Sunday
announced the death of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei. Amid the power vacuum and uncertainty around succession, Ali Larijani, Secretary of the Supreme National Security Council, told state media that a three‑member council comprising President Masoud Pezeshkian, Judiciary head Gholam‑Hossein Mohseni‑Ejei, and another jurist had assumed charge of the regime in the interim.
Follow our live coverage of the US-Israeli offensive against Iran
here
“It’s quite clear in that speech that regime change, enabled by the Iranian population, is what, of course, he’s striving to achieve. Well, in my own personal opinion, that’s not going to happen in Iran. I think it’s an extremely difficult objective to realise,” said Carter at the Rising Bharat Summit.
Carter said that the power structure in Iran is such that the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) and other systems sustain the regime even if the offensive takes down the political leadership.
“Unless there was a genuinely popular uprising, where people overcome the potential fear the regime uses to remain in power as well, I think it will be phenomenally difficult to see it happen. Now, some of the military objectives, I think, may well be achievable. The idea of writing down Iran’s ballistic missile programme, I’m sure, is achievable up to a point,” said Carter.
The US–Israeli offensive has also killed IRGC chief Mohammad Pakpour and Defence Minister Amir Nasirzadeh, according to state media.
US and Israeli missiles and bombs struck Tehran, Qom, Isfahan, Chabahar, Tabriz, Urmia, Kermanshah, and Shiraz in Iran. In response, Iran has targeted Israel and American personnel and bases in Qatar, Bahrain, and Kuwait. Impacts have also been reported in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE), but it was not immediately clear whether these were strikes or falling debris from intercepted missiles heading elsewhere.
Trump has made war existential for Iran, says Carter
With the stated objective of changing the regime, Trump has made the war an existential crisis for Iran and put it into total‑war mode, making it extremely hard to contain, according to Carter.
“I suspect that we will see Lebanese Hezbollah being mobilised to go on the offensive with Israel. I suspect we may well see Hamas being encouraged, perhaps, to go on the offensive in Gaza again. And I’m sure we’ll see the Houthis being encouraged to close Bab al‑Mandab and the bottom end of the Red Sea because these are existential issues as far as the Iranian government is concerned,” said Carter.
Flagging the difference between last year’s American attack on Iran and the current offensive, Carter said there was no stated objective to change the regime last year, and that meant Iran responded very differently, which allowed an offramp.
“We saw back in June when that was not a declaration of intent. Iran simply gestured with one attack on an American base in Qatar. This time it’s going to be different,” said Carter.
As for victory and defeat, Carter said that it would depend on what political objectives Trump has and how military objectives are set on that basis. Citing previous campaigns in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq, he stressed that it was very important to have achievable military objectives aligned with political goals.
“You will pretty quickly determine that the political objectives didn’t match the military objectives. There was no victory. So it’s really important, I think, in that dialogue between policymakers and senior military figures, that the correct objectives are identified at the beginning of the campaign,” said Carter.
End of Article
