The article analyzes the perception that the true objective of the US and Israel's attacks on Iran is regime change. Israeli analyst Harry Naimark, writing for Postimees, points out that despite the prevalent belief in a change of regime as the ultimate goal, initial statements from leaders following a specific attack on February 28 do not explicitly mention that aim. This suggests a complexity in understanding the dynamics between military action and political intentions.

Naimark elaborates on the challenges of achieving regime change in Iran through military means, acknowledging the resilience of the Iranian leadership and the socio-political context surrounding it. He argues that bombing, while destructive, does not necessarily weaken the regime's hold on power. Instead, it may reinforce nationalistic sentiments among Iranians, thereby consolidating support for the current government.

Additionally, the piece touches on the geopolitical implications of this stalemate, as it poses questions about the effectiveness of military coercion in democratic policymaking. The author's insights highlight the multidimensional nature of the conflict with Iran, urging readers to reflect on the broader ramifications of ongoing military strategies in the region.