Dalia Dassa Kaye on Iran: Why Military Force Cannot Deliver Political Change
JUDJ-Prepared Summary from March 25, 2026 | The High Stakes of U.S. Policy on Iran: America’s Choices in a Dangerous Moment. The views and opinions expressed in this blog are those of the speaker.
In a recent America at a Crossroads discussion, Dalia Dassa Kaye, a leading scholar on Middle East security and U.S. foreign policy, joined Robin Wright to explore a critical question: can military intervention bring about political change in Iran? Kaye’s answer was clear—force alone is not only ineffective, but potentially counterproductive.
The Flawed Assumption of Regime Collapse
At the outset of the conflict, there was an expectation that military pressure would ignite internal unrest and lead to the collapse of Iran’s leadership. Kaye challenged this assumption, noting that while Iran has experienced significant protest movements in recent years, war conditions have not amplified dissent—they have suppressed it.
A Population Under Pressure
Iranian civilians now face a dual burden: external military strikes and intensified internal repression. According to Kaye, this environment makes it nearly impossible for protest movements to organize or sustain momentum. Rather than mobilizing against the regime, many citizens are focused on survival amid bombings, surveillance, and restricted communication.
No Clear Alternative Leadership
Another major obstacle to political transformation is the absence of a unified opposition. While figures like Reza Pahlavi have visibility abroad, Kaye emphasized that they lack sufficient legitimacy داخل Iran. Meanwhile, many potential leaders within the country remain imprisoned or silenced. Unlike historical movements such as South Africa’s anti-apartheid struggle, Iran lacks a cohesive organizational structure to channel dissent into change.
The Limits of Military Strategy
Kaye also pointed to the historical failure of “decapitation strategies”—efforts to topple regimes by eliminating top leadership. Iran’s system, she explained, is deeply entrenched and capable of adapting to leadership losses. Removing key figures does not dismantle the broader political and military infrastructure, particularly with the influential role of the Revolutionary Guard.
Unintended Consequences
Far from weakening the regime, the war may actually strengthen its resolve. Kaye warned that military action could incentivize Iran to pursue nuclear weapons more aggressively as a form of deterrence. At the same time, hardline elements within the government are gaining influence, reducing the likelihood of reform.
The Human and Political Cost
Perhaps the most significant impact is on the Iranian people themselves. Kaye highlighted the country’s educated population, active civil society, and history of reform movements—particularly led by women. Yet these forces are being undermined by the very conflict that was, in part, intended to empower them.
Change Must Come from Within
Kaye concluded that meaningful political change in Iran cannot be imposed externally. Instead, it must emerge from within, supported by diplomacy, engagement, and long-term investment in civil society. Military force, she argued, is not a shortcut to democracy—and in this case, may be setting it back.
About America at a Crossroads
Since April 2020, America at a Crossroads has produced weekly virtual programs on topics related to the preservation of our democracy, voting rights, freedom of the press, and a wide array of civil rights, including abortion rights, free speech, and free press. America at a Crossroads is a project of Jews United for Democracy & Justice.
