The US military’s campaign in Iraq in 2003 is often remembered for its swift victories. Objectives were met with remarkable efficiency: the capture of Saddam Hussein, aerial supremacy established in mere days, and the Iraqi government’s collapse after just three weeks of combat. Yet, as we look back over two decades, the situation in Iraq offers a stark reminder of the complexities that follow military interventions.

Today, Iraq remains deeply influenced by Iran, with political factions in power that are closely aligned with Tehran. Iranian-backed militias, some of which hold positions in the Iraqi government, operate freely within the country. This reality raises serious questions about the effectiveness of the US’s efforts, which cost nearly $2 trillion and resulted in the loss of 4,488 American lives. The nation that was meant to be reshaped by American ideals is, in many ways, still under Iran’s thumb.

As an expert in international security and nuclear policy in West Asia, I’ve observed similar patterns in various military engagements. The military success often stands in stark contrast to political outcomes. History has shown that the aftermath of war can be unpredictable, and the gap between winning on the battlefield and achieving political stability is where many efforts falter.

Reflecting on the lessons of history, notably Thucydides’ writings about the Athenian empire, we see that the powerful can indeed dismantle regimes, but what follows is rarely straightforward. The Athenian conquest of Melos and the disastrous Sicilian Expedition highlighted a critical flaw: overwhelming force without a solid governance strategy can lead to chaos.

Today, the situation in Iraq serves as a cautionary tale for any future interventions aimed at overthrowing regimes like Iran’s. The real question may not be whether the US can dismantle Tehran’s government but rather what chaos might ensue in the void left behind. It’s a dilemma that has far-reaching implications for both regional stability and global security.