Geopolitics & War Brief — July 13, 2026

The Big Story

On February 28, 2026, President Trump announced Operation Epic Fury, a joint U.S.-Israeli military campaign designed to do something Western powers have attempted repeatedly in the Middle East: overthrow a government ^[1]. But this time, the stated ambition was unusually direct. "When we are finished," Trump told the Iranian people, "take over your government. It will be yours to take." Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu matched that rhetoric, saying the joint action would "create the conditions for the brave Iranian people to take their destiny into their own hands" ^[1].

The operation had multiple stated objectives. Preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons was primary ^[1]. But the regime change goal—the idea that military pressure would create an opening for internal forces to overthrow the Islamic Republic—was equally explicit in leadership statements. That framing matters because it grounds today's debate.

Here's the problem: the historical record of regime change operations in the Middle East is not encouraging ^[1]. From Iraq to Libya to Syria, military interventions aimed at toppling governments have produced mixed results at best, and catastrophic outcomes at worst. War on the Rocks, a defense and military analysis publication, has published a major analysis documenting this pattern ^[1]. The central argument is that Washington and Jerusalem appear to be betting on a model that has repeatedly failed to deliver its promised results.

The assumption baked into Operation Epic Fury is that military pressure + internal discontent = regime collapse. But decades of Middle Eastern conflicts suggest that equation doesn't reliably solve. Even when a government is weakened, the absence of a clear successor, fractured opposition movements, or competing external interests often means chaos rather than a smooth transition to democracy or a more favorable regime.

What makes this case distinctive is the scale of the operation and the explicit, public nature of the regime-change goal. Past interventions sometimes obscured their intentions or shifted objectives midway. This one was announced from the top, in plain language, to both domestic and international audiences. That sets a high bar for success—and makes failure more visible if it occurs.

What Else Moved

No additional stories met the sourcing threshold for this briefing.

Connecting the Dots

Operation Epic Fury represents a moment where geopolitical strategy meets historical reckoning. The U.S. and Israel have launched a military operation predicated on regime change—the same bet that has been placed, and lost or muddied, repeatedly across the region over the past two decades ^[1]. The fact that this operation was announced with such clarity, and with explicit calls for Iranians to "take over your government," suggests confidence in the model ^[1].

Yet the sourced analysis points to a disconnect: leaders may be acting on the assumption that military pressure creates space for internal change, but the track record shows that external military intervention often destabilizes without producing the intended internal political shift. The gap between intention and outcome is where the real risk lives—and where the Middle East's recent history offers hard lessons ^[1].

What to Watch

Monitor how Operation Epic Fury evolves over coming weeks and months. Watch for: (1) whether the stated goal of regime change remains the headline objective or whether it gets downplayed as military realities set in ^[1]; (2) signs of organized internal opposition or resistance within Iran that might validate the "conditions for change" thesis ^[1]; (3) statements from regional actors—Gulf states, Turkey, Iraq—about whether they're backing the operation or distancing themselves; (4) casualty reports and economic impacts, which will shape both international opinion and Iranian public sentiment. The operation's success or failure will have profound implications for future U.S. military strategy in the Middle East.