Former US officials warn Donald Trump doesn't have day after plan for Iran war

In 2003, the United States rallied international support to invade Iraq over false claims that Saddam Hussein's regime possessed nuclear weapons. Nearly 23 years later, the administration of Donald Trump launched a war against Iran, using similar unverified claims.

In both cases, Washington stated its goal was ultimately "regime change", but the difference is that in 2003, the US entered the Middle East with detailed war plans, a next-day strategy, and a full ground force.

Today, attacks are being carried out without US troops on the ground, amid conflicting signals and calls from Trump for the Iranian people to complete the mission after the strikes, referencing a Venezuelan model.

Trump told The New York Times on Sunday, 1 March, that he had "three very good candidates" to lead Iran but did not name them. He added, "I will not reveal them now. Let's finish the mission first."

Three days after the strikes on Iran, despite the killing of Iranian leaders and repeated Trump calls for the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the army, and police to surrender or face death, and his claim that thousands requested safety, there are no signs of Iranian defections or an alternative authority capable of preventing chaos.

Trump's day after

Al-Araby Al-Jadeed, the Arabic-language sister publication of The New Arab, spoke to four former senior US officials from the Departments of Defence and State. They argue Washington lacks concrete post-war plans for Iran and expressed concern that the absence of a transitional strategy could trigger new, globally significant political and economic instability.

Former US diplomat William Lawrence, director of regional studies at the Arab-American Relations Council, told Al-Araby al Jadeed that Trump has multiple objectives.

"The simplest way to put it is he wants either regime change or a behavioural shift aligned with US demands, not through negotiations. These are demands, not negotiations," he said. "Secondary objectives include disrupting Iran's military nuclear programme, uranium enrichment, and nuclear industry; neutralising Iran's ballistic missile threat to neighbouring countries; halting Iranian proxy activity in the region; and enabling Iranian civilians and the opposition to change the regime."

"That is why Trump was very clear in an eight-minute video, asking the Iranian people to wait until the bombing ends and then take over governance. The US and Israel may have plans to encourage this, meaning support for individuals inside Iran who want to act," Lawrence added.

He opined that the attacks' timing was designed to decapitate Iran's leadership to facilitate regime change.

"Intelligence indicated most of Iran's leadership would be vulnerable on Saturday morning, so the strikes were timed accordingly. It was not just about the number of leaders; most were targetable simultaneously, so three sites were hit to assist in regime change," he said.

Asked whether US airstrikes alone could achieve regime change, Lawrence answered: "No, that is extremely difficult. They can weaken senior leadership to some extent, hoping for the best outcome, but you cannot change a regime solely from the air."

He added that internal government discussions revealed "significant confusion within the Trump administration, intelligence community, and special operations regarding the post-strike plan" for the period after the potential death of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei.

"Trump is less concerned with who comes to power than achieving a result akin to Venezuela, where he can control leadership through pressure, threats, and covert operations. There are preference-based plans, but they do not appear to have a detailed hour-by-hour or day-by-day strategy for establishing a new system. Even if such plans exist, they seem unattainable," he remarked.

He also noted "major differences between US and Israeli objectives. Washington wanted a four-day bombing limit, while Israel wanted at least two weeks of targeting thousands of military objectives to disable the army and navy. Even in joint operations, priorities are not identical. Negotiations will continue in the coming days and weeks to adjust context and contingencies because Israelis generally seek more dramatic results."

Lawrence said Iran has a better chance of survival if it gives Trump enough to feel he won, allowing him to withdraw forces.

"They can present it so Trump feels he achieved his goals, similar to what the Danes did with Greenland. To a lesser extent, the Venezuelan regime did the same. Trump wants that, and Iranians could provide a version. The problem is Iranians want respect, and Trump gives the opposite, so they must reconcile this without gaining his respect," he said.

"They will either fight to the death or find a way out that convinces Trump he won enough to withdraw. The faster they choose the latter, the better for them and the US Arab allies. Netanyahu does not want that. He will try to prolong and inflame the conflict between Iran, America, and Arab states."

Doubts of success

Former Assistant US Defence Secretary Lawrence Korb said the Trump administration lacks next-day plans.

"The real question is, who will be in power? Are there American plans, Israeli plans, or a mix? These questions should have been addressed before the war, and I don't think they were," Korb said.

Nevertheless, Korb stressed Trump generally seeks regime change, "he wants a different system in Iran with much better relations with the US, whether democratic or authoritarian, as long as it is pro-America and pro-Israel."

Ultimately, Korb questioned the likelihood of success in achieving Trump's stated goal after eliminating Iranian leaders, saying, "We will see how Iran responds. Will it acquiesce or enter a prolonged conflict? It will be difficult for Trump without ground forces. Iran is larger, with over 90 million people, and stronger militarily than Iraq in 2003. There is a limit to what air power alone can achieve. Eventually, it reaches a tipping point, and that is a real challenge. Trump avoids ground forces because they would trigger a chaotic and costly war."

For his part, Mark Kimmitt, former deputy assistant defence secretary for Middle East affairs, argued that the real US objective is working with "a new Iranian government to end its nuclear and ballistic missile programmes and halt proxy activity", and not regime change.

"The plan is to work with a cooperative government. Regime change is not part of US plans, nor is it imposing a compliant government. Still, Washington hopes any emerging government will cooperate. If the Iranian people want to change their government, that is their affair," Kimmitt said.

Greater Iranian preparedness

Jason H. Campbell, a military analyst specialising in the Middle East and senior fellow at the Middle East Institute in Washington who previously served in the office of the US Secretary of Defence during Trump's first term, argued that Trump is unlikely to achieve regime change and highlighted Iran's preparedness.

He noted that the Iranians appeared to show much greater preparedness compared with the 12-day conflict last June, launching missiles toward Israel and US bases in the Gulf far more quickly than the roughly 18 hours it took in June 2025 when the US attacked.

"US strikes clearly aimed at decapitating the leadership, which was evident from Trump's messages calling on the Iranian people to assume control of governance," he added.

"There is a significant difference between decapitation and full regime collapse. History shows that air strikes alone rarely succeed in changing regimes. With this level of air control, it is possible to continue monitoring and striking major military bases and targets, but in a country the size of Iran, with 90 million people, if the goal is to topple the regime solely through air strikes, many additional factors are required that the United States currently does not possess," he continued. 

But Campbell expressed surprise that Iran targeted civilian areas beyond US bases in the Gulf, saying, "It seems they hope to pressure the US to stop strikes. US attacks were clearly decapitation attempts, reinforced by Trump's call to the Iranians to assume leadership. In the coming days and weeks, we will see how resilient the Islamic Republic is. Khamenei was in his late 80s… it was clear that a power transition was underway, now occurring under very difficult circumstances. His death could be shocking, but the need to find a successor has been discussed for some time."

He concluded that the US cannot easily change the regime and clearly lacks a post-war plan, "The US initiated a series of events that will spiral out of control. Even as the most influential actor, it cannot manage outcomes. This is Trump's risk. If successful, what follows is unclear. Nearly all scenarios point to prolonged instability. Will the regime collapse? Is the administration ready for the next day? Certainly not. There is no comprehensive plan for post-collapse. Trump said he is leaving the matter to the Iranian people to seize the opportunity. If the regime collapses, the United States will try to steer events, but under current conditions, its influence over what comes next will be very limited." 

On the possibility of Iran accepting a deal with Trump, Campbell said, "The question is, what is the diplomatic exit? What agreements is the leadership willing to accept? The US set maximum demands before the strikes. Perhaps a new leader or senior officials would accept a more favourable deal, but it will not come at the expense of the regime itself. The Islamic Republic is entrenched; leadership will not agree to an arrangement ending its existence. The next generation may accept a better deal for America, but not at the cost of the regime."

Article translated from Arabic by Afrah Almatwari. To read the original, click here.