These are important questions, but they are overshadowed by the more urgent issue of strategic aims. Can Washington translate its military campaign against Iran into a desirable political outcome? The way this war ends will ultimately determine whether Trump’s decision to attack Iran goes down in history as a rash act of folly or a courageous strategic success.

Trump has two options. The less risky option is to refrain from dismantling the regime and instead aim to put in place the Islamic Republic 2.0. The institutional skeleton of the regime would remain intact, but its top leaders—a good number of whom are already dead—would be replaced by a less ideological and more pragmatic cadre. Governed by moderates and the military establishment, this new regime would be defanged through strict constraints on its nuclear program, missile capabilities, and support for regional proxies. This approach has already been dubbed the “Venezuela model”—decapitation followed by coercing the remaining government into submission.

The appointment of Mojtaba Khamenei as the new supreme leader certainly presents an obstacle to this approach. He is a hard-liner who has clear ties to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and may well seek revenge for the loss of his father and other family members in the initial strikes. Mojtaba Khamenei would need to go if a more moderate regime is to take shape.

Trump’s other option is to attempt to topple the Iranian government. The theory is that a combination of withering attacks against the regime, arming and supporting Iranian Kurds and other potential proxies on the ground, and encouraging a popular uprising will end the long run of the theocratic regime that has been repressing its people and exporting violence and instability since taking power forty-seven years ago. The individual or group that would lead this rebellion has yet to emerge. But, the argument runs, the regime has lost its legitimacy and a popular revolt is waiting to happen.