The article delves into the military strategies being employed by the U.S. and Israel against Iran, revisiting an age-old question in military theory: can air power alone alter the fate of a political regime? A combination of a Wall Street Journal report and analysis from American writer Hal Brands suggests that the answer tends to lean towards a negative, pointing out that while airstrikes can inflict significant damage on military capabilities, they rarely suffice to achieve the desired political outcomes of warfare.

Historically, the article notes, there is scant evidence of governments being successfully overthrown purely through aerial bombardment. The U.S. has previously toppled regimes, yet these operations were successful when complemented by boots on the ground, whether American forces or local allies. The reasoning points towards the need for a multifaceted military approach that combines airstrikes with ground operations to effect substantial political change.

Additionally, the current strategic posture of the U.S. under President Trump, as indicated, appears to connect the air campaigns with ground strategies, reinforcing the idea that air power needs to be part of a broader military strategy involving other forms of engagement. The implications of this analysis raise critical considerations for future military operations and the efficacy of reliance on air power in conflict situations.