Did Bombing Iran Make America Safer?

Weakening Iran’s reach may do more for regional security than any promise of regime change

Below, you will find my conversation with Nick Gillespie of Reason Magazine and Emma Ashford, senior fellow at the Stimson Center, on what comes next for the Middle East in the wake of the U.S. strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities. If you don’t have time to watch the full hour, my thoughts on the matter are also written in full following the video.

When the U.S. military dropped bombs on Iranian nuclear sites, it reignited the long-smoldering debate: Does confronting Iran head-on make America safer, or drag it deeper into a region many believe it should be exiting?

As someone who grew up in Iraq and lived through the U.S. invasion and its aftermath, I’ve seen the full spectrum of American foreign policy: promises of democracy, the chaos of civil war, and the long-term consequences of intervention. Now, watching from Berlin as history rhymes once again, I believe the latest U.S. strikes against Iran might actually make the region—and by extension, America—more secure. But only if part of a broader strategic vision. One that, frankly, we’ve rarely seen.

The Islamic Republic of Iran has been a destabilizing force in the Middle East for over four decades. Since its founding in 1979, it has actively exported its revolutionary ideology, most often through militias, proxies, and covert campaigns. Iran’s influence, especially via the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), stretches far beyond its borders. From Iraq to Lebanon to Yemen, Iran’s footprint is visible in nearly every major regional crisis.

Ironically, one of its most dangerous byproducts has been the radicalization of Sunni populations across the Arab world. When a Shia theocracy becomes the dominant regional force, it naturally fuels Sunni extremism in reaction. ISIS, Al-Qaeda, and their cousins have always framed their existence in part as resistance to Iranian expansionism.

I don't believe this recent strike will trigger an immediate Iranian collapse or regime change. Nor should it. American-led regime change, as Iraq tragically proved, comes with enormous costs and unpredictable consequences.

But weakening the Iranian regime, strategically and economically, can bring meaningful benefits. The Strait of Hormuz, a critical artery of global energy trade, is routinely threatened by Iranian militias and naval forces. Iran has directly or indirectly attacked U.S. interests, Saudi oil facilities, the Abu Dhabi airport, and even Western companies operating in Iraq. Weakening Iran’s capacity to fund these operations makes international trade safer and more predictable.

From my perspective—and from the perspectives of leaders across the Gulf—this isn’t about exporting democracy. It's about deterring Iran from ruining the future. Most regional actors aren't hoping for Iran to become a liberal democracy; they just want it to be too weak to interfere with theirs.

Today, the Gulf states, especially Saudi Arabia and the UAE, are in the midst of ambitious national overhauls. Projects like Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030 aim to move their economies beyond oil, foster innovation, and open up to the world. But they can’t do that while surrounded by Iranian-funded militias.

Here’s the problem: Many Gulf countries no longer trust the U.S. to defend them. That’s why we’ve seen them flirt with China. Not because they love the Chinese Communist Party, but because Beijing offered what Washington didn’t: guarantees. China mediated the Saudi-Iran détente simply because America wasn’t willing to step in. That’s a vacuum with real consequences.

Yet when the U.S. recently defended bases in Qatar and Jordan from Iranian retaliation, it sent a message that it could still be trusted. It reminded Gulf partners why a strong alliance with the U.S. still matters.

Iran, for all its bravado, knows it cannot outgun Israel or the U.S. militarily or economically; it is vulnerable. That’s why, historically, it retaliates symbolically—warning allies in advance or hitting empty facilities.

Just as Saddam Hussein falsely declared victory in 1991 to preserve power, Iran is trying to sell this moment as a win to its people. But make no mistake: these performative responses reflect fear. Regime insiders know that if they fall, it won’t be to a Western military. It will be at the hands of their own people. The memory of Mahsa Amini and the “Woman, Life, Freedom” protests still haunts them.

If regime change does come—and I’m skeptical—it will most likely begin in Iran’s periphery. Iran’s Kurdish regions, where protests began after Amini’s death, are historically more open to liberal values and Western partnerships. They’ve seen what Kurdish autonomy in Iraq looks like and might believe a better life is possible. With the regime weakened, these areas could be the first to push back meaningfully.

But unless the West, especially the U.S., has a long-term strategy, even the best opportunities will be squandered. Iraq is a cautionary tale. Hope alone is not enough.

Not in the immediate sense. Iran is still standing. Its proxies are still dangerous. But the strike did something important: it reasserted American deterrence, restored trust among allies, and reminded Iran that its actions have consequences.

Whether this makes America safer depends entirely on what comes next. If the U.S. uses this moment to rebuild regional alliances, push for targeted sanctions relief in exchange for verifiable de-escalation, and articulate a vision that avoids both war and retreat, then yes, the bombing could make America safer.

But if it was just another “one and done”—a punitive spasm without follow-through—then we’ve only added fuel to a fire we cannot afford to ignore.

Middle East Uncovered is powered by Ideas Beyond Borders. The views expressed in Middle East Uncovered are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Ideas Beyond Borders.