More than two decades after the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003, the United States, along with Israel, has launched a war against Iran that is now in its second week, Al Jazeera reports.
As the missile strikes on Iran have increased, however, so have the changing and sometimes contradictory positions articulated by US President Donald Trump on what the United States really wants - leading to the fundamental question: what is Washington's ultimate goal?
US forces have struck nearly 2,000 targets in Iran since the start of the war, eliminating several high-ranking Iranian officials, including the country's former Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei in Tehran. The subsequent attacks targeted nuclear facilities, civilian areas, and critical infrastructure, such as oil refineries and a desalination plant.
Iran retaliated by firing hundreds of missiles and thousands of drones at Israel and its Gulf neighbors. Tehran said the attacks targeted military bases used by the United States, as well as energy infrastructure, U.S. embassies, and civilian areas.
So far, U.S. and Israeli attacks have killed more than 1,200 Iranians, including more than 160 children killed in a school bombing. Seven U.S. soldiers have also been killed. But analysts say Trump and his administration have never clearly explained how they want to end this war.
Here are some of the positions Trump has taken in the last ten days of the war, how they have evolved since then, and how realistic these scenarios are:
Regime change - by collapsing the Iranian elite
The attacks on February 28 began with the assassination of Khamenei, who had been Iran's supreme leader for 37 years and was the country's president before that.
Although the Trump administration has never explicitly mentioned the words "regime change", experts say its actions appear to have been aimed at the collapse of the current Iranian elite.
"The goal of the strikes was immediate capitulation of the regime and a popular uprising," said Mustafa Haider Sayed, executive director of Pakistan-China Institute.
Muhanad Sellum, an associate professor of international politics and security at the Doha Institute for Graduate Studies, noted that Trump’s approach seemed to be driven by an “unspoken stake.”
This approach assumes that “removing the head and enough of the body will lead to the collapse of the system or to its weakening to such an extent that whatever emerges will not be able to restore Iran to its pre-war status,” Sellum explained.
In reality, while many high-ranking military commanders and leaders have been killed, there has been little evidence so far of deep cracks in the institutions that underpin the Islamic Republic. On Sunday, Iran announced Khamenei's successor as supreme leader - his 56-year-old son Mojtaba Khamenei.
"I believe this was a miscalculation on Trump's part because they did not expect and did not understand that Iran had the resilience and stamina to fight a long and protracted war," Seyed said.
Deal with the Revolutionary Guard and Iranian diplomats
Since the start of the so-called "Operation Epic Fury" Trump's messages have oscillated between making deals and destroying Iran.
He initially called on members of Iran's Revolutionary Guard to lay down their arms and surrender in exchange for immunity, and later asked Iranian diplomats to side with him.
The Revolutionary Guard, however, has been leading Iran's counteroffensive against the United States and Israel, as well as Iran's attacks on other Gulf states. Iranian diplomats, in a public letter, rejected Trump's offer and stressed that they remain committed to their role as representatives of the Islamic Republic.
"The Revolutionary Guard just pledged complete obedience to the new supreme leader," said Sellum. "Trump has designated them a terrorist organization. Neither side has the political space to have this conversation while the bombing continues".
Eliminating Iran's military capabilities
Trump and his team have repeatedly spoken of destroying Iran's military capabilities - its ballistic missiles and the facilities that produce them, as well as its navy - as key military objectives.
The US and Israeli strikes have targeted Iranian naval assets, including a warship off the coast of Sri Lanka, as well as missile infrastructure. Both sides claim to currently control Iranian airspace.
Selloum notes, however, that military force alone cannot achieve the political outcome Washington may seek.
"The military tool is permitted far beyond what can achieve the strategic objective. The United States can destroy Iranian equipment, but it cannot produce a political alternative from the air," he pointed out.
"Take charge" — but let Trump decide who leads it
After the airstrikes on Iran on February 28 that began this war, Trump declared: "To the great people of Iran, I say the hour of freedom is at hand. When we are finished, take charge. It will be yours."
Trump later noted that he would prefer someone from Iran to lead a post-war government — thus diminishing the chances of Reza Pahlavi, the son of the former Shah of Iran, who harbors ambitions to return to Iran and lead the country, despite not having set foot there in decades. Pahlavi lives in the United States.
However, Trump has since insisted that he is against Mojtaba Khamenei as Iran's new leader — and has demanded a direct say in choosing the leader. Then, on March 6, in a post on his Truth Social network, Trump demanded surrender.
"There will be no deal with Iran, only UNCONDITIONAL CAPITULATION!", he wrote, adding that after the regime surrenders, "GREAT AND ACCEPTABLE leaders" must be elected.
Tehran's response to Washington's changing demands has been consistent: no capitulation, no negotiations under bombardment, and no leadership imposed from outside.
The election of Mojtaba Khamenei as Iran's new supreme leader is a direct rebuke to Washington's ambitions, experts say.
Selloum believes Mojtaba's elevation is a signal that the Revolutionary Guard has consolidated its role as the real center of power in Iran.
"For US purposes, this is extremely inconvenient. Washington wanted the succession to be a moment of internal rupture and potential opening. Instead, it had a unifying effect," he said.
"Trump called Mojtaba "unacceptable" and the Iranian establishment chose him precisely because the enemy rejected him. If the goal was regime change, this appointment is proof that he has already failed in his political dimension," Sellum said.
Kurdish invasion — or not
Another option that the Trump administration is known to have considered involves Kurdish forces attacking the Iranian army, which would pave the way for a broader uprising against the establishment.
The United States maintains relations with Kurdish groups in Iraq and a military presence near Erbil. Deploying Kurdish fighters to Iran, however, would be a far more complicated proposition, analysts say.
Although Kurdish leaders confirmed that Trump had held talks with them, experts warn that such a move could spark broader regional tensions.
"Iranian Kurdish militias do not have the capacity, unity or logistics for anything resembling an invasion," Selum said. "And any serious Kurdish mobilization would deeply unsettle Turkey, creating a second crisis that the United States does not need while it manages the first".
Ground invasion
Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said Iran was prepared for the possibility of a U.S. ground invasion.
Trump and his administration have not ruled out deploying troops on the ground.
However, Kamran Bokhari, a senior director at the New Lines Institute for Strategic and Policy Studies, said that Trump's domestic political calculations - he won on an anti-war platform - and the looming shadow of the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan mean that a ground invasion would be difficult for the president to carry out.
"Ground troops are the most unlikely option, given the president's political imperatives and the failures in Iraq and Afghanistan," he noted.
And what about Israel's goals?
Israel has long treated Iran as its greatest enemy.
But Majoub Zweiri, director of the Center for Gulf Studies at Qatar University, said Israel sees the current war as part of a broader project to transform the region after the Hamas attack. from October 7, 2023.
"What Israel plans to do is essentially use October 7 as a pretext for what they call a Middle East transformation, just like the United States did after September 11," he explained.
"Israel wants to eliminate, marginalize and defeat any potential player capable of challenging it, including Iran."
What is the realistic endgame for the US?
Amid all the contrasting goals that Trump and his team have set for the war, Andreas Krieg, an associate professor of security studies at King's College London, said that the most practical option for the US remains a coercive agreement, not a ground war.
"Washington could still be open to an understanding with elements of the regime, including those linked to the Revolutionary Guard, if those actors are willing to defend the country while making enough concessions on missiles, nuclear restrictions and regional behavior for Trump to claim success," he said.
Saeed of the Pakistan-China Institute said Trump's pragmatism could ultimately affect the outcome.
"Trump is quite a pragmatist. He would like to make a deal, declare that the United States has achieved its goals and end the war," the expert said.
"He could redefine victory, say Khamenei is killed, the armed forces are destroyed and end it. A land invasion would mean political failure in domestic politics and loss of the midterm elections.