In February, the Republican President, after conducting military operations against the government of a foreign power, appealed directly to the armed forces and to the citizens to rise and overthrow the regime. While this sounds ripped from Saturday’s headlines, it occurred in 1991, the President was George H. W. Bush, the foreign power was Iraq, and the encouragement was directed to the Kurdish population of the northern provinces. The Kurds answered the call, believing the regime was ripe for change. In March and April, the uncoordinated uprising, consisting of several disgruntled factions, enjoyed initial success but failed to consolidate and organize. The regime, still formidable, rebounded and crushed the rebellion, leaving tens of thousands dead and nearly two million displaced. The U.S., after encouraging the uprising, stood quietly by.

While it is likely that the majority of U.S. citizens have long forgotten this incident, it is equally likely that the majority of the people in the Middle East have not.

 This past weekend, President Trump, in coordination with Israel, ordered military strikes on military and leadership targets at multiple sites in Iran. Reports have confirmed that the Iranian Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was killed and there may be more leadership casualties in the wreckage. Like President Bush before him, he made a similar appeal to the Iranian military and people, once these initial strikes subside, to rise and overthrow the government.

 This is unlikely to happen.

First, the Iranian regime is far from devastated. The 86-year-old Ayatollah most certainly had a succession plan in place, and the regime has a fairly deep bench. While the loss of critical leadership in its foreign proxies has dramatically limited its ability to conduct operations abroad, that does not hold true domestically. There are plenty of loyalists ready to fill any leadership gaps left by U.S. and Israeli strikes. While degraded, the regime will remain effective and solidly in power.

Second, the Iranian people have not forgotten the lesson learned by the Kurds, therefore an uprising is extremely unlikely. If it did take place, it would need logistical support, organization, and leadership to succeed. These appear to be in short supply. The U.S. is powerless to assist with more than token support.

This is because, unlike President Bush, who chose not to use the significant forces, to include ground forces available in the region, President Trump has limited forces and no ground forces available. He must rely on bluster and bombs. Air power, be it conventional, missiles, or drones, in isolation, has never achieved a strategic objective.  The resulting mismatch in capabilities and objectives creates strategic over-reach.

This reality of geography helps explains several things. Iran is a large country, roughly the size of the U.S. state of Alaska. A sizable portion is mountainous. Those mountains define the borders of the country and help explain the longevity of political and cultural Persia across millennium. The territory is extremely difficult to invade and would be almost impossible to control for any amount of time. It is the reason this most recent incident will not expand into a larger regional war of any significance.  It dramatically limits U.S. and Israeli strike options, and it precludes any significant external assistance to an internal insurgency.

The most likely scenario is a few more rounds of bombing back and forth.  A few Americans serving in the region will die and so will many Iranians. Then the President will declare victory, rinse and repeat. There is no scenario where the U.S. will commit sufficient resources to a force a change in the internal dynamics of Iran. If those resources were to ever be sent for that purpose, recent history regarding Iraq and Afghanistan teaches us that it is most likely doomed to fail.

Martin A. Perryman, a retired U.S. Army Colonel, is a defense and foreign policy expert.