In Britain, the dominant expert view is that there is no strategy or clear objectives in the war with the regime in Iran - only chaos.

Listen to this article

The whole war is a mess. But this consensus is wrong - the military strikes are working in weakening the regime, and there is a clear endgame emerging. The military strikes in themselves won't ensure regime change, but as the US and Israel have both said, they create the conditions for it.

The debate on Iran in Britain has become strangely detached from the plight of the people of Iran. It is filtered almost entirely through negative attitudes to Donald Trump and Israel, as if the central question were not the fate of 90 million Iranians, but the personal moral positioning of Western commentators and experts.

While experts and analysts argue over international law, precedent and escalation, many Iranians see something else: the best opportunity in decades to end a system that murdered 40,000 people in a few days in January, injured over 300,000 and arrested and tortured tens of thousands. A regime that is the root of terrorism in the region and a backer of the Russian war machine in Ukraine.

They see military action as a humanitarian rescue mission. They believe the military action is working in weakening the state’s coercive machinery, creating an opportunity for them to rise again and overthrow the regime.

What is taking shape is a four-part endgame that is succeeding.

The first element is military. US and Israeli strikes are not random. They do not largely target the country’s infrastructure or even its national army. They are focused on degrading the regime’s core instruments of repression – the Basij, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), weakening their ability to control the street. The logic is straightforward: weaken the system that enforces control, and you change the balance on the ground. And it is working. When those tasked with suppressing dissent are themselves under pressure, less coordinated, and less confident, the fear barrier that sustains authoritarian rule begins to erode.

Reza Pahlavi, the leader of the democratic opposition, has told people to stay home for now, but at the right moment, he will again call for mobilisation to overthrow the regime.

The second element is defections. Reza Pahlavi’s team have set up a defection platform that tens of thousands have signed up to. There is growing evidence that units are simply not turning up to work. He has also issued direct appeals to the security forces: choose the future or choose the regime. This is not rhetorical. Every authoritarian system ultimately depends on the loyalty of those with guns. As that loyalty fractures, collapse can come quickly.

The third element is a mass uprising – but not yet. Iranians are being told to prepare and wait for a decisive moment. The aim is not scattered unrest, but a coordinated, nationwide mobilisation at a point when the regime is already weakened and internally divided.

And the fourth element is what sceptics claim does not exist: a plan for what comes next. In reality, there is an articulated framework for a Transitional Government, supported by detailed proposals for stabilisation and reconstruction. The Iran Prosperity Project. It provides a road map for a strong and stable translation. It directly addresses the fear of a vacuum.

Taken together, these four elements amount to something far more coherent than the “mess” often described in media commentary. This is what an endgame looks like: pressure from without, fracture within, mobilisation below and preparation for what follows.

None of this means success is guaranteed. The risks are real. But the chance of success is growing. And acting because it could undermine the international system, as some are arguing, seems particularly wrong. This is the same international system that has, for decades, failed the Iranian people. It has accommodated and, at times, financially sustained a regime that has repressed its citizens, destabilised its neighbours and funded armed groups across the region. Are we really asking millions of Iranians to defer their chance at freedom in order to preserve a system that has so consistently failed them?

Appeasement did not prevent this moment. It helped create it.

For those inside Iran, this is not primarily about Trump, or Israel, or western political alignments. It is about whether a system they experience as oppressive can finally be brought to an end.

Yes, this strategy carries risks. But the potential gains are enormous: a country reintegrated into the global economy, a major source of regional instability removed, a shift in the balance of power that could affect conflicts far beyond Iran - from the Middle East to Ukraine.

Revolutions are uncertain. But this one is worth backing.

Justin Forsyth is a former No10 adviser to Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.

LBC Opinion provides a platform for diverse opinions on current affairs and matters of public interest.

The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official LBC position.

To contact us email opinion@lbc.co.uk

© LBC