Trump underestimated the Iranian regime’s will to survive

Published: March 3, 2026 . The English Chronicle Desk . The English Chronicle Online

Analysis of the unfolding conflict between the United States and Iran suggests that President Donald Trump may have misjudged the resilience and cohesion of the Iranian political system even as he escalates military pressure and seeks to dismantle Tehran’s strategic capabilities. The joint U.S.–Israeli military campaign launched in recent weeks — including precision airstrikes and the killing of Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei — aimed to weaken the regime’s capacity and, according to Trump, to bring about a favourable strategic realignment. Yet a growing body of expert assessment indicates that Iran’s governing apparatus was built to endure external shocks and that the current conflict may evolve into a protracted war rather than producing a swift collapse of Tehran’s leadership.

Despite Trump’s repeated assertions that halting Iran’s nuclear ambitions and missile programs was essential to U.S. security, and framing military action as a “last best chance” to disrupt these threats, Iranian officials and analysts have signalled that the regime will not bow easily to external force or diplomatic pressure. Tehran has responded with missile and drone strikes against U.S. forces and allied states in the region, and its leadership structure — including hardline elements within the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and clerical elite — remains intact and capable of directing counter‑actions. Observers note that this institutional cohesion reflects a blend of ideological commitment and strategic design intended to withstand sustained confrontation.

U.S. intelligence sources cited by Reuters have expressed scepticism within the Washington establishment about the likelihood of regime collapse, even after Khamenei’s death. According to these assessments, a temporary leadership council has assumed control and the regime’s core security apparatus shows no signs of disintegrating. Analysts point out that a definitive breakdown of Tehran’s power structure would likely require significant defections from within the IRGC or elite factions, which have so far remained loyal to the state — a prerequisite for sweeping political transformation that Trump and his supporters had hoped might emerge from pressure.

Trump’s broader strategy — at times publicly focused on promoting “freedom” for the Iranian people and encouraging uprisings against clerical rule — has met contrasting realities on the ground. Pro‑democracy protests emerged periodically in 2025 and early 2026, driven by economic hardship and discontent with theocratic governance, yet the regime’s security forces have responded with ruthless suppression. This iterative push‑and‑punish cycle has reinforced the state’s narrative of existential threat and has, in some analyses, strengthened institutional resolve rather than eroding it.

Public opinion within both the United States and Iran further complicates the strategic calculus. In the U.S., support for Trump’s decision to strike Iran has been limited, with only about one in four Americans backing the military action in recent polls, while significant segments of the population express opposition or uncertainty about prolonged conflict. At the same time, Iranian official rhetoric has rejected overtures for direct negotiation with Washington, with senior authorities stating clearly that Tehran will not sit down for talks under current conditions.

Scholars and analysts argue that these dynamics point to a misalignment between Washington’s expectations and Tehran’s capacity for endurance. Iran’s political and military infrastructure was designed during decades of rivalry with the United States and regional adversaries to absorb shocks — economic, diplomatic and military — and to maintain continuity of governance even under intense external pressure. In this context, simply eliminating high‑profile figures or damaging military facilities does not inherently translate into systemic collapse.

The implications of underestimating Iran’s will to survive are significant for U.S. foreign policy and regional stability. As the conflict persists, policymakers in Washington face mounting challenges in articulating clear objectives, exit strategies and post‑conflict scenarios, all while managing domestic political divisions over the use of force abroad. The disjunction between Trump’s rhetoric about eliminating threats and the practical resilience of the Iranian regime underscores the complexity of achieving political outcomes through military means alone.

Read More At>>