Robert A. Pape (Professor of Political Science, University of Chicago):

President Trump is now facing the weight of history.

For over a century, leaders have tried to use airpower to force regime change from the sky. The theory is always the same: strike leadership targets, shock the system, fracture the regime, avoid a ground war.

It feels decisive. Clean. Controlled.

The record is brutal.

Airpower alone has never produced positive regime change. I don’t mean rarely. I mean never.

I document every major case in Bombing to Win, and I’ve returned to this question repeatedly in Foreign Affairs, including last summer in writing on Iran. The pattern is consistent: air campaigns aimed at political transformation almost always harden the target instead.

(For those who want the full exchange, the radio segment is available here.)

Regime Change from 30,000 Feet

Airpower promises leverage without occupation — pressure without ownership.

But regime change is not an engineering problem. It is a political transformation. And when bombs fall, politics do not pause. They reorganize.

Strikes aimed at changing regimes change internal politics first — and rarely in the attacker’s favor.

Inside Iran, the shift is predictable. What might once have been “mullah first” or “Supreme Leader first” becomes “Iran first.” External attack narrows political space. Moderates lose oxygen. Security institutions consolidate authority. Nationalism becomes the organizing force.

This is not conjecture. It is a recurring strategic dynamic.

How Fast Can This Turn?

On the radio, I was asked about timing. When would we know if this approach is failing?

History gives uncomfortable answers.

In March 1999, President Clinton launched what was expected to be a short, coercive air campaign against Slobodan Milošević. Fifty-one targets in and around Belgrade. The expectation: rapid compliance.

Two weeks later, Serbian forces expelled nearly one million Albanians from Kosovo — roughly half the province’s population.

The campaign did not fracture the regime. It accelerated its most extreme behavior.

Escalation can move quickly.

But it can also move slowly — and more dangerously.

The Retaliation Clock Does Not Run on Cable News Time

In April 1986, President Reagan ordered precision airstrikes against Muammar Qaddafi in an effort to decapitate the Libyan regime.

We missed him. We killed his three-year-old daughter.

Two years later, Pan Am Flight 103 exploded over Lockerbie, killing 270 civilians.

The public looks for retaliation immediately. If it does not come, many assume deterrence has worked.

But retaliation does not operate on a news cycle.

The lash back from regime-targeting strikes can take weeks, months, even years — and civilians often pay the price.

This is not a prediction of a specific attack. It is a warning about strategic momentum. Once unleashed, escalation rarely unfolds on the attacker’s timetable.

“Rise Up” — and Who Pays the Price

President Trump has called on Iranians to rise up against their government. That instinct also has precedent.

In 1991, after the first Gulf War, President George H. W. Bush urged Iraqi Shia to overthrow Saddam Hussein. The regime appeared weakened.

Instead, Saddam slaughtered thousands while the United States stood by. We did not have forces positioned to protect those who answered the call. Moving them into place would have taken weeks.

The risk in these moments is not borne by the leader issuing the call. It is borne by the people on the ground.

Pro-democracy movements do not wear body armor. Cotton shirts don’t stop bullets.

Iran’s security forces have repeatedly shown their willingness to use lethal force to maintain control. Encouraging uprising without credible protection can turn hope into catastrophe.

The Strategic Reality: Control Is Slipping

The debate is already drifting toward tactical metrics: How many missile sites degraded? How many command nodes destroyed?

Those are operational questions.

The strategic question is what happens inside Iran as strikes continue.

With each passing day of regime-targeting airstrikes, we lose control over the political dynamics they unleash.

It becomes less about individual leaders and more about national survival. Less about dissent and more about resistance.

Imagine if a foreign power struck Washington and called on Americans to overthrow their government. Would citizens rally against their leaders — or against the foreign attacker?

That is the dynamic now in motion.

The Pattern Is Clear

Airpower destroys infrastructure. It eliminates individuals.

It rarely dismantles regimes.

More often, it strengthens them.

The promise of air-led regime change is control without commitment. The reality is escalation without ownership.

This is not a partisan claim. It is a historical pattern.

And if history is any guide, the most dangerous effects will not necessarily arrive immediately — but they will arrive on a timeline we do not control.

History does not whisper in moments like this.

It warns.