There are few examples of successful US regime-change operations in history. And without permanent ground troop presence, these wins can easily be reversed.
Key US allies, like the UK and France, initially said the US attacks on Iran were unlawful, but after Trump lashed out some are now singing a different tune
Israel knows its military operation cannot last forever, so it is racing to either kill or fatally wound the Islamic Republic before the clock runs out
Attacks by Hezbollah and an Iraqi militia appear to be a calculated step by Tehran to widen the arena of conflict in a bid to raise the costs for its adversaries
Trump's appeal to Iranians to seize their freedom once American and Israeli strikes are finished fundamentally misreads a people whose history has taught them key lessons
The US and Israel carried out strikes across Iran, and Tehran has retaliated by striking US/Israeli assets across the region. Could this turn into the regional war analysts have been warning about?
Military strategists have long warned that war should be waged only if those waging it know what they want to achieve. Herein lies a problem: Washington's war aims in Iran are incoherent.
The regional rivals aren't just fighting over freshwater supplies. Cairo sees Addis Ababa's bid for Red Sea access as part of a wider fragmentation strategy.
When states are attacked, authority gravitates towards institutions capable of mobilising resources, enforcing discipline, and coordinating a military response
Cairo and Tehran have been at loggerheads since 1979, but the Iranian threat has always acted as a check on Israeli ambitions. If Iran is completely defeated, Israel will reign supreme.
Even if it stays on the sidelines of the US-Iran war, the country is fragile. Unlike larger economies that can absorb shocks in global markets, it has little room to cushion the impact.