Introduction
During President Trump's first term, John Bolton, then US National Security Advisor, denied that the Trump administration looked for “regime change” in Iran. Even at that time, many interpreted Trump's violation of the JCPOA as a policy shift toward that purpose and even “going to war with Iran”. “Regime change” as a policy option toward Iran has always existed in Washington during the past four decades.  For various domestic, regional, and global reasons, it is nothing more than a costly illusion. Why?

Domestic Context
 In Afghanistan, Iraq, and Vietnam, the US could rely on opposition groups to existing governments, with a strong social basis in those countries. However, there is no important Iranian sector sympathetic to the US that Washington can rely upon for “regime change”. Most opposition groups, like the Monarchists and MEK, that the US has hosted, are weak and are more liabilities than assets because of their backgrounds. Monarchists are responsible for creating the situation that led to the 1979 revolution. They are not able to claim democratic legitimacy and lead the people to a better situation. Mujahedin-e-Khalq, especially for their explicit alliance with the Iraqi dictatorship during the 1980s and 90s, have no support among the Iranian population. They enjoyed the support of Saddam Hussein, whose regime used chemical weapons on its own and on the Iranians and killed close to 200000 Iranians during the Iraqi War against Iran. The US support for these groups has backfired and discredited the US among many Iranians.  During the recent protests in Tehran, I could rarely hear anyone support the return of the Pahlavi dynasty in the northern part of the city, which is more secular. The The
Iran-US relationship is overloaded with negative experiences since 1953. Notably, the USA explicitly interfered against the popularly elected Dr. Mosaseq, by a CIA-supported military Coup that brought the Shah back to power on 19 August 1953 ( see: Bethany Allen-Ebrahimian, “64 Years Later, CIA Finally Releases Details of Iranian Coup,” Foreign   Policy, 20 June 2017). Moreover USA explicitly sided with the enemy of Iran, during the Iraq-Iran war of  22 September 1980- 20 August 1988, provided Chemical Weapons for Saddam, and shot down an Iranian civil airline that killed all the passengers. Afterwards, the US rallied major powers to place crippling sanctions on Iran to control its nuclear program that had been started with US support before the 1979 revolution. And now the US is targeting civilian and civil infrastructures as a show of support for them!!!.
Furthermore, “Regime change” of different kinds has mostly happened in small and medium-sized countries. The only exception that I know is the USSR, which collapsed from within. Iranian society, with a population of 90 million in more than 400 cities, does not permit a discredited player to recruit enough people to dominate it. The governing system in Iran, with all its shortcomings, is in a much better position to strengthen its social-political basis and confront any provoked effort from abroad. 
During the past four decades, Iran's enemies shaped the US understanding of Iran; that’s why new administrations, after any policy review, made more mistakes. The Iranian political and social system is multi-centric, and political changes have been going on from within during the past decades. Because of the political dynamism, the Iranian system has practically experienced many changes. Elections (presidential, parliamentary, and municipal) are the most important window of opportunity for the people to express their satisfaction or dissatisfaction with any political group. No one can say that the past six presidents (Hashemi, Khatami, Ahmadinejad, Rouhani, Raisi, and Pezeshkian) were/are the same.  Iranian political and security structures are too big to collapse. The mechanism has led to change and continuity, while the US understanding of Iran has been frozen since 1979 and the hostage crisis. That is why the US relations with Iran are much different from Iran's relations with Russia, China, India, etc.
“Regime change” agenda may be feasible in countries that suffer from a legitimacy crisis, not an efficiency crisis.  The Islamic republic suffer from deficiencies, such as ecological or economic problems. There are economic, social, and political demands and grievances. However, cultural identity preserves its unity; moreover, the Shi`a doctrine of renovation (ijtahad) facilitates adaptability to the dynamics. Ideologically, people’s religious beliefs legitimize the state by providing a central core, a nexus for the integration of different ethnicities into a unity.
Iranian territory is extensive- Comprising an area of 1,648,195 km2 (636,372 sq mi), it is the second-largest country in the Middle East and the 17th-largest in the world, being four times the size of the state of Texas and bigger than three main European countries like Germany, France, and the UK sorrunded by high mountains and vast deserts. The military and paramilitary forces are spread all over the country. No quick coup or strategic air strike can challenge the ever-ready millions of military guards and paramilitia.
IRI is managed by several powers, the Shi`a clergies, the Secular intellectuals, the women and the youth,  and finally the military institutions –the army, the revolutionary guard, millions of grassroots militia that are based in thousands of Shi`a mosques and affiliated institutions. The latter is in fact a grassroots military institutions –consist of many millions who can assist the revolutionary guard. USA can't perform a surgical operation against the very complex web of interdependent IRI's multiple sources of power. The grassroots military and para-military forces rooted in major mosques of all of Iranian cities consist of millions of regular and volunteers. The US was not able to defeat a Viet Cong grassroots force that was a small percentage of its Iranian counterpart.
 In this vein, Iranians will resist any submission to a power that, via its technological force, tries to impose its will on them.   A superior foreign alien military force- invasion, occupation, and decapitation is doomed to ultimate failure. The barrage of insults and sanctions that the USA’s president and the Congress (obviously influenced by the Israel lobby) to the Revolutionary Guards and the Shi`a clergy forced resulted in an impossibility that they can be used by the USA for regime change!

Regional Context
Before the current military attacks, the US was engaged in all policies and actions done by others, especially by Israel, against Iran. President Trump, at every opportunity, uses anti-Iranian rhetoric, such as his reference to the Persian Gulf as “Arabian Gulf”, as well as appointing anti-Iranian War Hawks to his staff. These policies have undermined the US credibility as a democratic state and encouraged Iranians to raise their flag and oppose any pro-US movement.
Most of the US allies in the Middle East lack viable political systems that accommodate internal social and political dynamisms. The Arab Spring was the result of the inefficiency of static economic and political systems to manage dynamic young societies.  Lobbyists and Public Relations companies financed by Arab money and nurtured by Israeli pen and intelligence actively encouraged the US politicians in Washington, Brussels, and other capitals to keep these regimes in power and to undermine and destroy the Iranian power structure as much as possible. They asked the US to cut the head of the snake years ago, and they provided all kinds of information and assets that the US needed to attack Iran for decades.  They shaped the US and EU threat perception about Iran. Now they claim that they are not part of the war.
Furthermore, Iranian people have learned the lessons of the US “regime change” in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Libya, and Central Asia. The US has not been able to present any good example of US-supported democratic changes. Almost all successful cases of democratic changes in East Asia and South America have happened within internal sociopolitical dynamism. Through military attacks, economic sanctions, and political pressures, the US policies have been the main obstacle to democratic changes in the Middle East. Militarization has made security concerns the top priority for both political systems and societies in West Asia. Economic sanctions have undermined the middle class as the main force of democratic changes. By bombardment and crippling sanctions that target all people, the US officials expect the people to rise against their government. History does not remember such stupid people.  
From military and security perspectives, Iran is strong and relying on its capabilities. Iran, for years, contributed to the security and stability of other countries like Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon. The groups supported by Iran finally could defeat ISIS and bring back stability to Syria and Iraq, before the Israeli genocide in Palestine. Talking about regime change in a country that has the experience of exporting security is far from reality, and considering it fragile and on the verge of collapse is far from reality.

Global Context
To begin with, the “regime change” mindset is a symptom of several US postures to warrant its hegemony to sustain global power, a la Huntington's thesis that the noble Christian white civilization is threatened by others (Islamic and Chinese Civilizations), and the confrontation with them is inevitable. Trump's nationalist tendencies are highly susceptible to this narrative. However, like the “pre-emptive strike” against Iraq, it is an illusion that undermines the US Global competitiveness against rising powers and economies.
Regime change policy is not universal. While Trump, without any strategic vision, is investing in more instability in the Middle East, Russia, China, India, and Europe are looking for new allies and markets. In contrast with the USA, Chinese and Russian relations with developing countries and regions stress constructing sustainable economic and strategic partners. China's gigantic financial institutions, such as the China Development Bank, play an important role in its economic power, which creates military strength. China is investing in infrastructure-related projects such as the construction of the transcontinental railroads in Eurasia, Africa, and South America, to decrease the cost of exporting commodities and raw materials. The New Silk Road sharply decreases Chinese and Russian dependence on sea routes dominated by the US seapower. While other countries think about construction, the US and Israeli officials think about and are busy destroying other nations and the global economy. The war against Iran will discredit the US for decades.
The rise of China, India, and Russia again is partly the result of the US policies. Overemphasis on economic tools of power and defunct ideologies by the US has pushed many countries toward other rising economies during the past two decades. The salient feature of the US foreign policy is that of the producer of military arms –e.g., in exchange for petroleum, selling arms, milking the country's resources, and encouraging Israeli aggressive policies.
In addition, those who pushed Trump toward current illegal aggression against Iran assume that the US can sustain its ability to repeat its previous adventures –such as the invasion of Iraq –that cost the US taxpayers over $4 trillion, most of it given to firms empowered with the military industrial complex of “deep states.” Trump has repeatedly said that the war imposed 7 trillion dollars on the US, but he does not ask who imposed the costs on American taxpayers and why. He titled his book Crippled America. But how was America crippled, and by whom? America was crippled by Netanyahu and neocons, who are back. With a 38 trillion dollar national debt, the US is not in a position to follow a costly conflict for a long time.
It is a big mistake to think that the US can weaken Iran and leave the region, and concentrate on Indo-Pacific. The US allies and adversaries may drown the US in the Persian Gulf.  Destabilizing and weakening Iran as the first step toward “regime change” in Iran (like what they did with Iraq after the invasion of Kuwait) is the policy that Netanyahu proposed, and Trump pursued.  Political stability and security are important red lines for the whole Iranian society and are socially protected. During the last Iranian protests, as soon as foreign agents began to destroy public property and kill some protesters and security forces, the original protesters withdrew, and the the securitity forces prevailed. The sum spent on changing the economic protest to a violent overthrow of the government and killing civilians backfired as before.
Millions of dollars of USA money have been used by Netanyahu during the last two decades on espionage, assassination of scientists, creating coalitions, and imposing sanctions with ‘0’ gains for the USA. The day after, an Iranian nuclear scientist was assassinated in the street, over one thousand university students –males as well as females – changed their major to nuclear physics! So the US CIA-Israeli plot to delay Iranian nuclear technology resulted in 1000+ fresh young minds being determined to continue the technological achievements. As one familiar with Iranian culture knows, the nationalistic spirit –and pride (it is irrelevant if it is justified or not) – as expressed in the following epic poet’s vision  of Firdausi:
Techne (honar)- belongs to the Iranians; They do not give the Power Lion (i.e., their spirit) to anyone else.
In sum, Iranians who have survived the Greeks, Arabs, Mongols, Russians, and the British and Iraqi invaders are extremely complex people. Occupying a large area of diverse lands- if you win and stay for a long time, it would be the first in thousands of years – be careful. If the US’s experience in Iraq is any sign of the result of such a scheme, it might be that the result of any Iranian regime change by military force would be the last breath of the USA’s agenda to remain the top global superpower, respected by a majority of people around the globe. Obama was smart enough not to fall into the trap that “allies and adversaries” had prepared for him in Syria, but Trump, who withdrew from JCPOA on May  8th, once again was trapped by Netanyahu.

Nabi Sonboli

(The opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not purport to reflect the opinions or views of the IPIS)