In the whirlwind of Middle Eastern geopolitics, the spotlight is once again on Iran. While the Iranian president courteously offers apologies for attacks on the United Arab Emirates, the strikes persist with all the subtlety of a bull in a china shop. It begs the question of whether the apologies are merely empty words emanating from Tehran or if there’s a gap in command and control as wide as the Grand Canyon. Brigadier General John Tikkert, a seasoned military mind, leans towards the latter explanation, suggesting that these are the actions of an organization continuing on autopilot, unit by unit, without a clear leader at the helm.

Adding to this tangled situation is the strategic importance of the Straits of Hormuz, a vital artery for global oil supplies that Iran has previously threatened to block. Despite a well-documented deficit in naval power, Iran still brandishes a toolbox filled with ballistic missiles, cruise missiles, and drones—enough of a threat to pause international shipping quicker than a snowstorm can shut down D.C. This conundrum leaves tankers at a standstill, likely waiting for Uncle Sam’s assurance of protection or perhaps a dazzling escort courtesy of the U.S. Navy.

Now, let’s spice things up by talking about who exactly is calling the shots in Iran. With the Ayatollah and several other key figures out of the picture, it’s like trying to figure out the leadership structure of a three-ring circus with all the ringleaders gone. There’s no single person emerging as the face of the regime, which presents quite the challenge when looking to negotiate or demand an unconditional surrender. It appears the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) units are diligently going about their business—showing internal security skills and rattling sabers at their neighbors regardless.

The former head of the CIA, General David Petraeus, offers a sobering reminder that for all the bluster about toppling regimes, it’s no small feat. He emphasizes the need for organized, disciplined forces to make a credible run at regime change. The idea of uncoordinated and unarmed opposition standing up against a robust security apparatus comes off as optimistic as expecting Congress to pass a bill without a bickering match. Realistically, U.S. and Israeli strikes may begin to chip away at this internal security, eyeing a potential opening for opposition groups, should they ever organize enough to rise up.

Meanwhile, President Trump’s musings about the Iranian people reclaiming their government sound well-intended but face a hard truth: these people aren’t exactly equipped with the latest weaponry. The idea of opposition groups springing up like daisies in the desert seems unlikely unless there’s some serious outside assistance or motivational leadership coming from within. There’s an opportunity here; however, it’s going to take a well-orchestrated push—air support included—to turn the scales in favor of any insurgent groups, particularly those looking for freedom and a new government to call their own.