Abraham Lincoln vs. the Ayatollahs: Can the United States overthrow the Iranian regime?

A US aircraft carrier strike group, led by the USS Abraham Lincoln, has arrived in the Arabian Sea.

At the same time, the United States and its allies are moving fighter jets and aerial refueling planes to the Middle East and deploying additional air defense systems.

Such a concentration of force is a clear sign of preparations for a military attack on Iran, where the ruling theocratic regime appears to be in its most vulnerable position since it came to power in 1979. For almost all of January, the country saw protests of an unprecedented scale against the ayatollahs' regime, which ended in a brutal crackdown that left between 3,000 (the minimum confirmed figure) and more than 30,000 people dead.

However, none of the airstrike options available to Donald Trump alone would be enough to guarantee a change of power – and the forces now assembled are clearly insufficient to introduce any serious presence on the ground. However, this situation could still change in the coming days.

Before the storm

In late 2025 and early 2026, Iran experienced unprecedented popular unrest — both in scale and in the amount of violence seen on the streets. What began with economic slogans quickly shifted to demands for the dismantling of the theocratic regime and even the restoration of the monarchy. The protests were accompanied by attacks on administrative buildings, mosques, and law enforcement officers. By mid-January, the Iranian authorities had managed to suppress the uprising by force: the country’s internet was shut down for several weeks, and protesters were simply shot in the streets by members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC).

The US-based Human Rights Activists News Agency (HRANA) has estimated that at least 6,373 people were killed during the protests and that 42,486 were arrested. Another 17,091 deaths are being investigated for possible connection to the unrest. According to official figures from the Iranian government, 3,117 people were killed, with 2,427 categorized as civilians and law enforcement officers and the rest labeled as “terrorists.”

Iran International, an opposition-affiliated outlet, claims that more than 36,000 people were killed in total, with January 8-9 marking the bloodiest crackdown on street demonstrations “in history.” Time magazine, citing high-level sources in the Iranian Ministry of Health, reported that up to 30,000 people were killed during those two days.

In early January 2026, Donald Trump indicated that he was ready to help if Iran “killed” protesters. He later issued a call for continued demonstrations and occupation of administrative buildings, noting that “help is already on the way.” Some White House and U.S. national security officials seemed to expect the attacks to begin in mid-January, only for Trump to calm the situation after assurances that the planned executions of 800 Iranian protesters had been canceled — or, at least, that was the story as told by presidential press secretary Caroline Leavitt.

Since then, the protests in Iran have indeed calmed down, but it is too early to say that the internal crisis is over. The inflation, currency depreciation, and general negative economic trends that initially caused the unrest remain, as does a deep social divide between supporters and opponents of the country’s highly idiosyncratic theocratic leaders. According to an intelligence assessment provided to Trump, the Iranian regime is in the most vulnerable position it has experienced since it came to power in 1979.

The Iranian regime is in the most vulnerable position it has experienced since it came to power in 1979.

Meanwhile, Iran is threatening to respond with a “global jihad” if US forces attempt to assassinate Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, and authorities in Tehran have unveiled a striking mural depicting a damaged US aircraft carrier following in its bloody wake – with the color scheme and design elements echoing the American flag and inscriptions in Persian and English that read: “Whoever sows the wind shall reap the whirlwind.” Iran’s Yemeni allies, the Houthis, went even further, releasing an animated video depicting the attacks on Abraham Lincoln.

Warships and fighter jets gather towards Iran

With the recent arrival in the Arabian Sea of ​​the 3rd Carrier Strike Group (CSG-3), a window of opportunity is opening for the Trump administration to conduct a large-scale military operation against Iran. US strike groups are typically accompanied by at least one submarine armed with cruise missiles, and the destroyers accompanying Abraham Lincoln – USS Spruance (DDG-111), USS Michael Murphy (DDG-112), USS Frank E. Petersen, Jr. (DDG-121) – are also equipped with missile systems.

The aviation component of CSG-3 includes Carrier Air Wing Nine, which boasts fifth-generation F-35C Lightning II multirole fighters (10 to 12 aircraft), F/A-18E/F Super Hornet fighter-bombers (30 to 36 aircraft), EA-18G Growler electronic warfare aircraft (7 aircraft), E-2D Hawkeye early warning and control aircraft (4 to 5 aircraft), CMV-22B Osprey tiltrotor aircraft (3 aircraft), and MH-60R/S Sea Hawk multirole helicopters (19 to 22 aircraft).

In addition, US Central Command has confirmed the deployment of additional F-15E Strike Eagle fighter jets to a base in Jordan, bringing the total there to 37 aircraft, along with a significant number of aerial refueling and military transport aircraft at various bases in the Middle East and Europe. Additional air defense systems are being deployed to the region, including Patriot and THAAD batteries at the large Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar. The UK Ministry of Defence has also reported the transfer of Typhoon fighter jets to Qatar.

Since the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia have stated that they will not allow their territory or airspace to be used for attacks on Iran, a prolonged air campaign may require a second carrier strike group to operate within range of Iranian territory. Notably, the USS George HW Bush (CVN-77) is already underway from Norfolk, but even without its presence, the United States has assembled sufficient forces and capabilities for a military operation.

Possible scenarios

Based on publicly available information, the only realistic option at the moment is an air campaign similar to Operation Midnight Hack, which was conducted in June 2025. A ground operation by the US and its allies currently seems unlikely, as it would require the assembly of an invasion force of roughly the same size and composition as those fought in the wars against Iraq in 1991 (Operation Desert Storm) and 2003 (Operation Iraqi Freedom).

In the first case, it took about six months to deploy more than 500,000 American troops (not counting allies) and several thousand tanks, aircraft, and artillery systems to the region. In the second case, the number of American service members in theater reached 340,000 before the operation began. Currently, American bases in the Persian Gulf region house about 50,000 personnel, and most of them belong to the Air Force and Navy, not infantry units.

Israel has forces on the scale required, but the country has never participated in large expeditionary operations, and there is political opposition to Israel's involvement in such a campaign – both from America's Arab allies and within Israeli society itself.

In the future, the United States could mobilize forces comparable to those deployed during the Iraq war, but given the limited amount of assets currently in the region, Trump has only the following scenarios at his immediate disposal:

Symbolic attacks on facilities of the Iranian military-industrial complex or nuclear program

Attacks on facilities belonging to Iran's security apparatus — primarily the IRGC and Basij, which are responsible for the brutal suppression of protests.

Attacks on industrial centers and transportation and energy infrastructure to inflict economic damage on the ruling regime.

Attacks targeting senior military-political leadership, including Ali Khamenei

The problem is that none of these scenarios guarantees regime change in Tehran—certainly not for a government friendly to the United States. Symbolic attacks are unlikely to have any significant impact on the stability of Iran’s theocracy, and while attacks on security infrastructure might have a greater effect, they would require days of airstrikes and careful reconnaissance of targets to disrupt command and control, thus giving the protests at least a chance to rekindle. Meanwhile, the consequences of attacks aimed at inflicting economic damage or physically eliminating Khamenei are even harder to predict.

None of the air campaign scenarios guarantees regime change in Tehran – certainly not for a regime friendly to the United States.

According to further leaks, the United States is leaning toward targeted attacks on political leaders and security officials responsible for suppressing the protests, but now that the demonstrations have already been suppressed, it is not entirely clear how such attacks will affect the overall situation in the country. Moreover, recent historical examples show that while wars can be won without a ground invasion, achieving political change in this way is extremely difficult.

Whatever scenario Trump chooses, the odds of regime change through an air campaign alone seem relatively low compared to the much greater possibility of large-scale destabilization of the entire region, provided that Iran responds forcefully and comprehensively by mobilizing its allies across the Middle East—Palestinian Hamas, Lebanese Hezbollah, Yemen’s Houthis, and Shiite militias in Iraq. Such a development would disrupt freedom of navigation in the Red Sea, threaten any prospects for a peace settlement in Gaza, and potentially lead to the emergence of a new war in Lebanon.

Given all of the above, the most realistic scenario for the weakening of the ayatollahs’ rule would be the complete dissolution of the Islamic Republic. Ethnic Persians make up less than 50 percent of the country’s total population and are concentrated in the central part of the country, while ethnic minorities—Azerbaijanis, Kurds, Arabs, Baluchis, and Turkmen—live mostly in compact areas along the periphery. Supporting armed resistance under the banner of national self-determination, especially among Iranian Kurds and Baluchis, who are already fighting the central government, would likely be more effective than any form of airstrikes. However, it would also be far more dangerous for neighboring countries and almost fatal to any prospects for a secular, pro-Western democracy within Iran itself that might soon emerge.

However, the United States and its allies – most notably Israel – will need several more days of operational preparation and deployment before any operation can reasonably be expected to begin. However, Israel’s civil aviation authority has warned foreign airlines that a “sensitive” period for air traffic could begin as early as January 31 or February 1.

For now, Trump insists that Iran must “make a deal,” and it’s entirely possible that the presence of such significant forces in the region could help advance negotiations. However, the potential terms of the “deal” being floated in the media—the ayatollahs agreeing to abandon their nuclear and missile programs while ending support for proxy forces throughout the region—seem completely unacceptable to Iran’s leadership.

As reported by The Wall Street Journal, two of the three proposed conditions have already been rejected.

The Geo Post