Assessing Success

by Eduardo del Buey

Assessing Success

When you send troops, aircraft, and vessels to attack another country, well-defined goals must be set if you are to have a basis for evaluating the success of your mission.

The first and most important issue is a definitive objective that must be met for the operation to be considered successful.

Last week, the United States and Israel undertook a military operation against the Islamic Republic of Iran.

If you look at statements from spokespersons for both the U.S. and Israel, you get several different definitions from the President, the Prime Minister, and different elected officials from both countries.

President Trump speaks of eliminating Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities. While he applauded the deaths of Iran’s senior leadership, he avoided saying that the prime objective is creating a viable democracy in Iran.

Prime Minister Netanyahu, on the other hand, indicates Israel’s appreciation for Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi, whose goal is to create a viable democracy with free elections and who will oversee a democratic transition.

This leads me to wonder what the real objective of this operation is, and if Israel and the U.S. are on the same page.

If you remove the top leadership of a government with myriad centers of power, a highly armed army, the Revolutionary Guard, and an ideologically driven bureaucracy, the simple elimination of nuclear and ballistic capabilities is not enough to change the governing class's overall mentality or the fundamental nature of government.

If the millions demonstrating on the streets don’t have access to weapons or support from international players, and lack a leadership structure on the ground, they will continue to be cannon fodder.

It would behoove us to remember that in 1978-79, Ayatollah Khomeini had a vast network of mosques and clerics providing guidance and leadership for the masses, as well as logistical and armed support for street demonstrations.

This does not exist in Iran today. I know of no national leaders in Iran who command the loyalty and respect of the Iranian opposition that Khomeini did in 1979. So far, the military and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps show few signs of switching sides, as did the Shah’s army back then.

In Venezuela a few weeks ago, the governing structure appeared willing to do President Trump’s bidding, and Vice President Delcy Rodriguez has done just that.

If you look at the President’s track record in Venezuela, his forces eliminated the head honcho and kept the rest of the structure intact.

His only interest is the revenue from Venezuela’s oil and keeping it out of Chinese hands.

It could well require keeping the governing structures of Iran in place to ensure peace and stability as he has done in Venezuela, perhaps at the cost of real freedom for the population.

As well, a fundamental restructuring of the architecture of power in Iran would require boots on the ground, much as post-war Germany and Japan required to destroy both countries’ primary ideologies and ensure a transition to an acceptable form of government.

So far, there is no sign of a return to democracy for Venezuela, nor for the rightful administration that won 74% of the national vote in 2024, taking office.

In my view, President Trump has little appetite for a democratic government in Iran that might refuse his demand for control of its oil and gas and determine its destiny.

On the other hand, Israel wants to eliminate the major existential threat it has faced for 47 years.

This would require the wholesale cleansing of the Iranian governing infrastructure. It would require nation-building of the kind the U.S. President and his MAGA supporters loathe and which historical U.S. experience has proven to be unattainable.

Both leaders claim that this operation will be short and definitive.

However, both history and realpolitik may indicate otherwise.

I look forward to seeing how both countries measure the success of this operation and what results it produces.