The following article is pretty long, but I think it's a very good read:
Iran exists today because of its missiles, says former UN weapons inspector
February 20, 2026
As Washington once again raises the prospect of confrontation with Tehran, questions about U.S. intentions - and the limits of American power - have returned to the center of debate in West Asia. In an exclusive interview with the Tehran Times, Scott Ritter, a former UN weapons inspector and U.S. Marine intelligence officer, discussed how Washington views talks with Iran, what it hopes to achieve with the country, as well as the growing risk of military escalation.
Ritter believes that the United States is using diplomacy less as a route to agreement than as a tactical tool to buy time, apply pressure, and shape the conditions for confrontation. In his remarks to the Tehran Times, he outlined what he sees as the real thinking behind U.S. and Israeli demands, warned against misreading Iran’s deterrence, and described the potentially catastrophic consequences of a war for the region - and far beyond.
Read the full text of the interview below.
Trump has called regime change in Iran "the best thing that could happen". From your perspective, how realistic is it that the U.S. could actually achieve that, and are there any historical examples that help put this into context?
It is important to understand that when President Trump articulates regime change in the way he has, it reflects official U.S. policy. Iran should not be misled into believing that there is any pathway to the normalization of relations through negotiations. Negotiations, in this context, serve purely as a pretext to prepare the ground for a regime-change operation.
The United States has a long history of carrying out regime-change operations in other countries. The operation against Saddam Hussein in Iraq, for example, was a decades-long effort. Muammar Gaddafi, Bashar al-Assad, and Nicolás Maduro are other cases often cited. The fact remains that the United States has repeatedly sought to remove targeted governments from power.
These statements are not made in a vacuum. They are tied to a broader policy framework and to concrete measures that are already underway. Iran has recently endured a period of severe violence orchestrated by the United States and Israel with the explicit aim of weakening the Iranian system in pursuit of regime change. This is not a hypothetical scenario; it is a real policy and a genuine threat to Iran.
There's a lot of talk in the U.S. about precision strikes versus a full-scale invasion. If a limited air campaign happened, what do you think would be the first targets, and how might that affect the region as a whole?
It is clear that there are two types of strikes the United States could consider. One would be a so-called demonstration strike, similar to what occurred at the end of the 12-day war - a short, symbolic attack designed to demonstrate American power and allow Washington to posture without achieving any substantive outcome. Such strikes are typically employed when the United States recognizes that it cannot realistically achieve its ultimate objectives.
If, however, the United States moves beyond a demonstration strike, it would signal a commitment to a decisive and existential outcome for Iran - namely, regime change. That represents a fundamentally different approach, and it is closely tied to domestic American politics. It is important for Iranians to understand that U.S. policy toward Iran is deeply influenced by internal political considerations.
The current U.S. president faces a critical midterm election in November and is already under significant political pressure due to domestic issues, including immigration policies, the role of ICE, and the deployment of militarized police forces in American cities. He risks losing control of the House of Representatives, which could expose him to impeachment proceedings during the second half of his term - an outcome he is keen to avoid.
The president campaigned on a promise to avoid major wars in the Middle East. If the United States were to enter a large-scale regime-change war with Iran, he would need to secure a clear and decisive victory. Failure to do so would likely be politically devastating. This calculation is central to current U.S. decision-making.
There is ongoing discussion about a week-long military operation against Iran, and such an operation would be designed to be decisive, with the explicit goal of bringing down the Islamic Republic. This possibility must be taken seriously. At the same time, the political risks involved may ultimately prevent the president from making such a decision. Without a guaranteed outcome in terms of regime change, the United States could become trapped in an open-ended conflict - something that would carry severe political consequences for him at home..."
Source:
https://www.tehrantimes.com/news/524030/Iran-exists-today-because-of-its-missiles-says-former-UN-weapons