No plan survives first contact with the enemy. That popular quotation is really a paraphrase of a somewhat more verbose statement by Prussian Field Marshal Helmuth von Moltke the Elder in 1871. It’s obviously true: events, like individuals and groups, are unpredictable and even well-executed plans have unforeseen and unforeseeable consequences. But what happens when there is apparently no plan?

Operation Epic Fury, the American and Israeli attack on Iran, is answering that question. Air supremacy was established in a matter of hours. The upper echelons of the government and military were rapidly slain along with Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. All signs point to reiterated slaughter of their replacements indefinitely, as well as degradation of missile caches, launchers and other military installations.

Iran’s plan, if it has one, seems to revolve around creating as much chaos and confusion as possible.

The regime reacted by opening fire with drones and missiles not only on Israel but on their immediate neighbours also. More than 500 Iranian ballistic missiles and 2,000 drones have been flung across the Middle East. Not all have been aimed at American or Israeli military targets. A disproportionate number fell on civilian buildings and infrastructure in the UAE, Oman, Saudi Arabia, and Bahrain. Nato defences shot down a missile apparently aimed at Turkey.

This seems to be what Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi implied by ‘Decentralized Mosaic Defense’. Whatever he meant by that, the indiscriminate missile and drone salvos look like a breakdown in command and control. Araghchi seemed to confirm that in an interview with Al Jazeera. Units were acting, he said, in an "independent and somewhat isolated" way, "based on general instructions given to them in advance".

Meanwhile, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) have vowed to attack all ships passing through the Strait of Hormuz, the energy choke point in the Persian Gulf. And yet, Foreign Minister Araghchi claimed that Iran had no intention of closing the Strait. Shipping traffic there has practically ground to halt as a result of this apparent confusion.

The remnants of Iranian leadership may judge that inflicting damage throughout the region and making the Strait unusable will raise the cost of the war. Spreading the pain may be a way of pressurising America to back down. Such a judgements are dangerous and likely to backfire. Iranian aggression now threatens to unite the Gulf states with Israel and America, and may also invite a response from Nato if Turkey feels sufficiently menaced.

However, curtailing the war would not salvage the Iranian Regime. ‘Survival is victory’ is an oft-recurring trope applied to desperate, cornered regimes, but it is mistaken in this case. All the problems which provoked public protest at the end of 2025 are still there. In fact, currency devaluation, hyperinflation, mismanagement of water resources, and the collapse of agriculture are all worse now. The massacre of Iranian protesters earlier this year has further undermined the legitimacy of the Islamic Republic.

This brings us to American and Israeli aims. Destroying the Iranian regime’s military capabilities, including its ballistic missile arsenal, air defences, and nuclear facilities, are obvious goals which have been stated publicly many times. But then what?

US President Donald Trump has spoken vaguely of "regime change". He has also said that he would personally choose the next leader of Iran and that Iranian patriots should "take back" their country. In contrast, US Secretary of State for War, Pete Hegseth has disavowed regime change altogether while also insisted that the regime "sure did change".

We would naturally expect American public communications to leave room for strategic ambiguity and surprise. Recent alarming news about possible Kurdish and Baluch militants marching on Tehran may belong to the same pattern of misdirection and deception. But what is the end state supposed to look like? How will victory be recognised?

The Islamic Republic may well not recover from the murder of the Ayatollah and his circle — but only insofar as joint-rule by clerics and sadistic thugs will disappear and only the thugs will be left in charge. Then there will be a game of whack-a-mole, in which one cohort of Iranian leaders after another are murdered — a process which will only end when Americans grow tired of it. Or perhaps a senior Iranian general may sue for peace and try to make a deal with Trump.

A popular uprising against the Islamic Republic would certainly be the most desirable outcome. But no such thing seems likely to happen until senior members of the regime and the armed forces or paramilitary groups defect, stand down, or join forces with the people. And if such an outcome materialises, it may well owe more to good luck than any strategic plan. We will know soon enough.

Michael Bonner is a historian of Iran, Senior Fellow of the Aristotle Foundation for Public Policy, and author of In Defense of Civilization: How Our Past Can Renew Our Present. He holds a doctorate in Iranian history from the University of Oxford and is a contributing editor at the Dorchester Review.