By New York Post (Opinion) | Created at 2026-08-19 03:16:19 | Updated at 2026-08-19 04:41:48
2 hours ago
With Monday’s quiet expiration of the 60-day cease-fire deal in Iran and no talks scheduled about a new agreement, the on-again, off-again war has entered a strange new phase.
A big indication came Tuesday when President Trump declared that the vital Strait of Hormuz is now and will remain under American control. He posted a map where the waterway was labeled “new U.S. territory.”
In a quick and harsh reaction, Iran disputed his claim, with a deputy foreign minister calling it “delusional.” He said the strait will only be “opened and closed under Iran’s command, and as long as you do not accept the reality of defeat and stop indulging in delusions, Iran will continue to enforce the blockade.”
If nothing else, the stalemate and hostile exchange suggest the possibility that while there is no settlement in sight, there is one dimension to the war that is taking on an air of finality. Namely, that there will not be any voluntary regime change in Tehran.
Regime no change
That likelihood is a bitter pill to swallow for Israel and the United States, but both appear to have reconciled themselves to that result, if only because despite the awful pounding Iran has taken, there is still no movement toward a fundamental reform of leadership. Although that was never a stated goal of the war, Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu clearly were hoping for it.
Neither wanted to commit ground troops to such a dangerous operation, but there were discussions between them and their staffs about persuading Kurdish fighters to serve as the boots on the ground. There was also a belief that given an opening, Iranian civilians would be able to rise up and help overthrow the government.
Israel reportedly pushed that idea to the US and believed it was a realistic option, although Trump and his national security team were not completely sold.
And reports in Israeli media now say there was never an actual, detailed plan that was shared with the Israel Defense Forces about how and when to help make that happen, and therefore the idea didn’t have a serious chance of success.
Nonetheless, the possibility that the hardline Islamist leadership would be replaced with a more representative civilian government seemed inevitable on Day One of the war that was launched last February. As many as 40 top Iranian leaders were killed instantaneously when they were gathered for a meeting that day.
Trump and Netanyahu both quickly said the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, was among the dead. Iran disputed that, but within a day its controlled media confirmed that he and many top commanders had been killed.
The brazen targeting revealed that a major goal of the war was to wipe out the ruling mullahs in hopes that a new generation of reformers would bring Iran back into the world of nations instead of pursuing the near 50-year aim of exporting its fundamentalist Shia revolution.
The existing government had never tried to conceal that its ultimate aim was to eliminate Israel and the United States, with the mullahs repeatedly calling them the Little Satan and the Big Satan.
Trump and Netanyahu agreed that Iran’s development of ballistic missiles and long quest for nuclear weapons, which could have made those dreams a reality, could not be tolerated any longer.
Buildup to action
Still, despite those and other provocations, Trump had been careful not to call for regime change. He had shown incredible restraint during months of negotiations in the first year of his second term, until Iranian officials boasted at a meeting that they had enough enriched uranium to build perhaps a dozen nuclear weapons.
And they insisted, according to envoy Steven Witkoff, that they would never give up what they regarded as their right to enrichment.
That provoked a noticeable change in Trump, as did the regime’s brutal slaughter of protesters in the streets who were demanding economic reforms because of shortages of food, water and fuel and out-of-control inflation.
As the death toll mounted into the thousands, amid reports that protesters were being tortured and even executed in hospitals, and as the regime shut down the internet, Trump clearly lost hope that a negotiated settlement was possible.
In January, he posted on social media that “HELP IS ON ITS WAY” and urged protesters to take over their institutions.
Yet it was only after a huge American military buildup in the region, and just days before the initial attack, when Trump publicly allowed for the first time that regime change might be the only way to achieve a settlement where Iran abandoned its quest to obtain nukes and regional dominance.
But here we are, six months later, and despite massive bombardments of Iranian officials and military facilities, all that has changed are the names and titles of the despots in charge.
Iran’s B-team replacements, including the late ayatollah’s son, Mojtaba Khamenei, who was said to have been seriously wounded in the Day One attack, have kept in place the hardline agenda of imposing brutal repression at home and seeking regional dominance.
An unmistakable sign is that public executions, including hangings of dissidents, have begun again.
And Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis are damaged but still determined to rid the region of Israel and the US.
Hardliners aplenty
The overall reality animates an analysis released last week by a conservative think tank in Washington called the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.
It begins by saying, “The latest reshuffle of Iran’s government looks less like renewal than a game of musical chairs among regime veterans.”
It says Mojtaba Khamenei appointed officials to seven posts on Aug. 9, including the heads of war and internal security, which the report calls the most important institutions charged with defending the regime’s survival.
It says the leadership under Mojtaba “remains every bit as hardline as it was under his father, with each appointee carrying a record of anti-Americanism and domestic repression.”
It adds that the changes preserve the old chain of command and leave “Washington facing the same uncompromising hardliners — just in different seats.”
In what seems like an aside to the White House, the author cautions against any temptation to believe there are officials and factions who are “more rational and therefore more trustworthy and approachable.”
As the report puts it, “Washington should not mistake internal rivalries for an opening. These competing factions remain aligned on the policies that threaten the United States, its allies and the Iranian people.”
It’s a dispiriting but sober assessment that anyone who still believes a voluntary regime change is possible is pursuing a fool’s errand.
