Scenario Analysis: If the U.S. and Israel Resort to Plan B

If the United States and Israel resort to Plan B and the so-called “Venezuela scenario” does not materialize, then the strategic landscape changes significantly. Plan A was always based on the assumption that by eliminating the top leadership, the Iranian power structure would crumble from within. The belief was that once the head is removed, the body collapses. However, the West has repeatedly miscalculated when it comes to the strength of ideology. The Iranian leadership structure is not built around one individual alone. Even without Khamenei, the system remains intact, functional, and capable of making decisions. The institutions are designed to survive leadership loss. The regime’s ideological core and security apparatus ensure continuity.

If internal collapse does not happen, then a second scenario would likely unfold. This would involve limited ground engagement built around local forces. I refer to this as the “Syria scenario.” The lesson from Syria and Iraq was clear: air power alone achieves limited results. You can weaken, destroy infrastructure, and eliminate targets, but you cannot hold territory from the air. Ground control requires trusted local actors. In this scenario, local forces loyal to U.S. interests would clear and secure territory, establish operational zones, and create a ground base for further coordination. Air support would remain critical, but the decisive factor would be who controls the land.

This is where the Kurds enter the picture. In the past days, there have been heavy bombardments and attacks in Rojhalat, Iranian Kurdistan, along the border with the Kurdistan Region. The U.S. has reportedly targeted Iranian military bases, police stations, and government facilities in the area. The purpose of such strikes would be to weaken Tehran’s control and reduce the regime’s ability to dominate those territories. On the other side, Iran has heavily bombarded Kurdish areas, likely as a deterrent strategy, using fear to prevent Kurdish Peshmerga forces from entering and securing ground. One side clears the path through military pressure; the other side relies on intimidation to block any local takeover.

There are also indications that Kurdish leadership has been contacted by the U.S. President and his team. The strategic message would be straightforward: the Kurdistan Region’s Peshmerga units are expected to deploy their best equipped battalions to coordinate with Kurdish fighters inside Rojhalat, while the U.S. and its allies provide air cover and intelligence support. This mirrors exactly what happened during the fight against ISIS in Syria and Iraq. The Kurds were the reliable ground force. They secured and held territory while U.S. specialists moved in to coordinate broader offensives. The model is familiar, tested, and operationally efficient.

Under this scenario, Kurdish forces would secure and hold areas in Rojhalat, creating a controlled zone that could be used for further strategic pressure against Tehran. U.S. military advisors and specialists would then move closer to the theater to coordinate expanded operations if needed. This becomes the most likely course of action if Tehran does not yield under pressure. And it is unlikely that Tehran will simply kneel. The Iranian system has shown resilience before. If collapse does not come from within, then controlled ground leverage through trusted local actors becomes the alternative path.

This is not a theory of total invasion. It is a theory of limited territorial control combined with sustained air dominance. History shows that air campaigns alone do not reshape regimes. Ground realities do.