Taking the Worst-Case Scenarios in Iran Seriously

But not literally

Share this story

Smoke and flames rise after airstrikes on an oil depot in Tehran, Iran, March 7, 2026.

Sasan/Middle East Images/AFP via Getty Images

In their coverage of the war over the skies of Iran, legacy media outlets continue to assess that this campaign, now in its twelfth day, is an abject disaster for the U.S. and Israel.

The Gulf states that are absorbing Iran’s unprovoked drone and missile strikes are reportedly seething with quiet resentment toward the United States, calling into question the West’s regional postwar alliance structure. “A ‘multitude’ of intelligence reports provide ‘consistent analysis that the regime is not in danger’ of collapse,” Reuters added, raising the possibility that regime collapse is a viable objective in this war. Even if regime change is off the table, the U.S. is evidently obliged to pursue that outcome indefinitely, even without any prospects for success. If Donald Trump bugs out early, he would “grant Tehran control over the world’s energy markets,” Wall Street Journal reporter Yaroslav Trofimov reported. “It would also sacrifice the security of America’s partners and allies, and possibly make another, more devastating, regional war likely.”

Noah Rothman

About the Author

Noah Rothman

Noah Rothman is a senior writer at National Review. His third book, Blood and Progress: A Century of Left-Wing Violence, was published by Hachette in May 2026.

Comments

Advertisement

Advertisement