As debate continues over U.S. objectives in the ongoing conflict with Iran, the expert consensus is growing that regime change — however defined — is unlikely to succeed. Jamsheed Choksy, Distinguished Professor of Iranian and Central Eurasian Studies in the Hamilton Lugar School of Global and International Studies at Indiana University, is among the scholars lending skepticism to the proposition.
In a March 2026 analysis published on the Substack newsletter Maybe We Evolved Wrong, writer Robert Vanwey drew on a wide range of regional experts — including Choksy — to argue that the structural and political obstacles to regime change in Iran are formidable. Vanwey cited Choksy's assessment, previously published on the Hamilton Lugar School's faculty insights page, that it remains doubtful the current military campaign will “decapitate the Iranian regime sufficiently and diminish its weapons supplies adequately so that it is compelled to surrender or becomes weak to the point that the people can overthrow the theocracy.”
The analysis situates Choksy's view within a broad scholarly consensus. Vanwey draws on political scientists, security analysts, and regional specialists to examine three potential pathways to regime change — airpower alone, a ground invasion, and a domestic uprising — and finds each facing serious obstacles.
On the question of airpower, the piece notes that destroying infrastructure and eliminating individuals has historically proven insufficient to reshape political systems. Even a successful decapitation of Iran's leadership, the analysis argues, would not dissolve the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), which functions as a parallel government with deep economic and political roots across all 31 Iranian provinces.
A domestic uprising, meanwhile, faces the challenge of a fragmented opposition that is unarmed and unable to communicate freely, operating under extensive state surveillance and facing a security apparatus specifically designed to suppress organized dissent. Choksy’s skepticism aligns with assessments from scholars at the Brookings Institution, the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, and the Atlantic Council, all of whom are cited in the piece.
Choksy is a Distinguished Professor in the Hamilton Lugar School’s Department of Central Eurasian Studies and director of the school's Inner Asian and Uralic National Resource Center. His research spans Iranian and Persian studies, Zoroastrianism, Islam, and the development of societies across Central Asia, the Near East, and South Asia. He has published extensively on Iranian politics and security, including recent work in Foreign Affairs examining the fragility of the Islamic Republic and the limits of external intervention.