For decades, opinions on the Middle East conflict have been polarizing. While a fact-based, balanced perspective is increasingly rare, Western citizens are being led down two opposing but equally suicidal paths. Leftists are increasingly inclined toward a policy of appeasement toward ever more radical Islamists, who are themselves portrayed as persecuted victims. Conservatives, on the other hand, are being led down a militaristic course, on which they utterly fail to liberate Muslim populations from violent extremists and oppressive regimes—as George W. Bush promised before the wars in Afghanistan (2001-2021) and Iraq (2003-2011).
Instead, Western militaries have destroyed civilian infrastructure and facilities, resulting in considerable collateral damage. This kind of “liberation” has boosted the support base of terrorist organizations and Islamists in general, while simultaneously enhancing their global reputation.
Above all, the media-driven portrayal of the suffering of Muslim civilians brings the Islamists closer to their true goal: the spread of a radical, reform-resistant Islam. To this end, terrorist organizations have established seemingly harmless civilian branches that spread their ideology into Western societies through a process of patient jihad based on propaganda and demographics.
These successes have led extremists to develop a strategy for success based on the interplay of violence between terrorism and Western reactions. This was demonstrated by the massacre on October 7, 2023 which was planned by Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar. The plan worked perfectly, as confirmed by a message to accomplices in Qatar in mid-2024. After the Israeli military had devastated large parts of the Gaza Strip, he wrote: "We have Israel right where we want them." https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2024/06/11/hamas-leader-yahya-sinwar-depicts-palestinian-casualties-as-necessary-sacrifices/
As protégés and extended arms of the Tehran power circle, Hamas and Hezbollah share the same irresponsible mentality, which leads them to coldly sacrifice their own civilians for radical political goals. These fanatics want war and seek only the opportunity to shift the blame onto the enemy. The destruction of civilian infrastructure such as bridges and power plants, as announced by Trump, has no deterrent effect whatsoever; rather, it plays into their strategy of victimization.
The political and media headwinds which Trump is facing in the Iran war are creating increasing pressure toward a policy of appeasement toward Islamists. Simply yielding to this pressure would result in a continued expansion of Middle Eastern and worldwide terrorism.
However, the days until the ceasefire expires offer the opportunity to prepare for the immediate, largely bloodless liberation of the 70-80% of Iranians who reject the regime.
In the eyes of the citizens, the regime in Tehran has forfeited its legitimacy through decades of supporting terrorism and murdering thousands of demonstrators. However, a coup attempt by its own forces would be extremely bloody due to the entrenched system structures, and its success uncertain. The necessary skilled external assistance can now be provided by the United States and Israel. The aim is to bring about the resignation of the uncontrolled power triangle consisting of Supreme Leader, the Assembly of Experts, and the Guardian Council largely without violence.
IMMEDIATE MEASURES FOR A MOSTLY NON-VIOLENT REGIME CHANGE:
1. Removal: The United States, Israel, and allies declare that the Supreme Leader, the Assembly of Experts, and the Guardian Council have lost their legitimacy. Each member is offered a clear, time-limited way out: voluntary house arrest with protected status and free departure for those who publicly renounce violence and resign within a few days. Anyone who refuses and continues to issue orders will be ostracized by an international declaration—without recourse, with assets frozen worldwide and travel bans imposed. This mirrors successful pressure tactics used in past transitions of power and leads to the immediate paralysis of the leadership without attacking civilian areas.
2. Protection through a coordinated “Air Defense Strategy of Freedom”: Any regime security forces (Basi, internal units of the Revolutionary Guard) attempting to massacre demonstrators will be targeted with precise, real-time airstrikes. Conversely, population centers, power grids, and civilian infrastructure will be protected. This strengthens the Iranian people’s right to peaceful assembly and accelerates the achievement of the 3.5% participation threshold, which is known to make nonviolent movements unstoppable. At the same time, Iran is being provided with secure means of communication (satellite internet, encrypted apps, VPNs) and Persian-language broadcasts that unequivocally proclaim: “We stand with the Iranian people against the regime that oppresses you.”
3. Supporting parallel institutions and defectors: The formation of a National Reconciliation Council (including various opposition movements such as women’s rights activists, trade union leaders, reformers, and representatives of civil society) is being promoted and financially supported. This transitional body can call new elections and coordinate peaceful strikes, boycotts, and neighborhood committees—proven methods from the nonviolent phases of the 1979 Iranian uprising and the Velvet Revolutions in Eastern Europe.
4. Guiding cooperating individuals: Politicians, army commanders, and mid-level police officers should be given a choice: registration and retention of their rank and protection, or personal sanctions and isolation.
5. Selective Sanctions: Secondary sanctions should be maintained and intensified exclusively against regime-controlled entities, elite offshore accounts, and regime oil revenues. Simultaneously, transparent humanitarian channels should be established to bypass regime intermediaries. Diplomatic channels to the theocratic leadership should be closed, and any emerging republican or transitional government that guarantees free elections should be recognized. This weakens the repressive apparatus without harming the overall economy or the Iranian population.
A similar program can also be used as a measure of pressure in negotiations when only announced.