Genocide Alert: Future Consequences of the War in Iran

By Michał Jagielski

Senior Iran and Central Asia Team Leader

Genocide Watch

On February 28, 2026, the United States and Israel fired a salvo of missiles, hitting several targets across Iran and starting the ongoing war. As of March 5, the conflict has killed over 1,000 Iranians, including 168 schoolgirls and staff in the attack on an elementary school in Minab, 77 Lebanese, 11 Israelis, 11 people in other affected countries,and six U.S.soldiers. US and Israeli bombing has caused severe damage to Iran’s civilian infrastructure.

In the first days, American nationals were stranded in the Middle East with embassies unable to evacuate them. Contacting them was uncoordinated. Iranian missiles penetrated defense systems set up to protect U.S. bases in the Gulf states. Israel allegedly assassinated several potential Iranian leaders chosen by the U.S.

Several justifications have been given for the US and Israeli attack:

• destruction of Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities;

• forcing Iranian regime change; and

• protection of Israel and other U.S. allies and interests in the region.  

Mourners hold a portrait of a students during a funeral ceremony for children, who lost their lives after a primary school in Iran’s Hormozgan province was targeted in US and Israeli attacks, on March 3, 2026 in Minab, Iran. [Anadolu/ Agency]

The American government's justifications for its attack on Iran have varied.

• On March 2, War Secretary Pete Hegseth claimed that the U.S. attacked Iran because of the danger posed by its nuclear and ballistic missile programs.

• On the same day, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said during a news conference that the U.S. began its bombing campaign because Israel was about to strike Iran, which subsequently would cause Tehran to take retaliatory actions against American bases.

• On March 3, President Trump , claimed that Iranians “were getting ready to attack Israel. They were going to attack others.” This was an assertion of preemptive self defense.

• The Pentagon informed Congress that Iran had no plans to attack the U.S. But Iran's constant missile attacks on Israel, a key US ally, were immanent threats that justified the attack on Iran.

Many Democratic US Congressional leaders question whether the decision to go to war was made by the U.S. or motivated by Israeli leaders. They assert that the US Constitution requires authorization for war by Congress. They also consider the American attack a violation of international law because there was no imminent threat from Iran to the USA.

What consequences will the war have for Iran after the war ends?

The U.S.-Israel coalition has not publicly revealed plans for the aftermath of the war. The conduct of the U.S. and Israel suggests that the goal may be the total destabilization of Iran, which could eventually lead to regime change. While that strategy would limit American casualties and might allow President Trump to stave off some domestic criticism, it could also endanger the lives of Iranians.   

Regime change might not be positive. It could mean that the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) may increase its dominance. Iran could be plunged into a dark time of increased oppression.

If the U.S.-Israel campaign fails to achieve popularly supported regime change, there exists a real possibility of nationwide witch hunts and state-sponsored terror. After the 12-day war in June 2025, the regime targeted ethnic minorities and activists with arrests and death sentences on an unprecedented scale. Tehran claimed that the sentenced individuals belonged to terrorist groups, or were associated with Kurdish or Baloch separatists, or were foreign spies working for Israel. If a Revolutionary Guard regime survives, it is likely to engage in similar lies as justifications for murder.  

One of the most likely alternatives to the current regime is a military takeover by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) with the support of a weaker supreme religious leader like the Ali Khamenei's son, Mojtaba Khamenei. It does not seem likely that the IRGC will turn against the religious theocracy. Armies and security forces in authoritarian environments do so only when their cost-benefit calculation clearly shows a possible improvement or retention of their domestic support.

If the IRGC takes control of Iran and comes to an agreement with the U.S. and Israel, the new regime will not adhere to democratic principles. International sanctions and draconian morality laws might be lifted, improving the day-to-day lives of Iranians. But Iranians would still live in an authoritarian state.

Military leaders who become national rulers do not seek democratic reforms. Instead they seek to retain their power. This would be true of the IRGC, whose standing is dependent on direct support from the theocracy. The IRGC actively led the horrific crackdown in 2026, including the murder of at least 6800 protesters. According to some reports, the actual number of murders was over 30,000 Iranians.

A democratic Iranian government would prosecute those responsible for the killings, putting many of the IRGC’s leaders and possibly the entire theocratic organization in danger. Fear of prosecution means an IRGC government would resemble other countries led by juntas, where political dissent is persecuted, government funds are distributed among loyalists, and civilians are denied their basic human rights.

The U.S. may be aiming to deploy Iranian ethnic minority groups such as the Kurds, based on recent reports of the CIA’s arming Kurdish peshmerga militias in Iraq. A reported phone call between President Trump and Kurdish leaders, Masoud Barzani and Bafel Talabani asked for support for the US bombing, including the bombardment of the Kurdish border region between Iran and Iraq.

There are several risks in this strategy:

First, ethnic armed groups like the peshmerga are difficult to control. There are numerous militia forces under different commanders in or near Iran, including the Democratic Party of Iranian Kurdistan (KDPI), Kurdistan Free Life Party (PJAK), Jaish al-Adl (Army of Justice), the Arab Struggle Movement for the Liberation of Ahvaz (ASMLA), and the Islamic State-Khurasan Province (ISKP).  Also, the Shiite majority government in Iraq may not be a reliable ally in the U.S. and Israeli war against Shiite Iran. 

Second, even if the U.S. and Israeli offensive is successful and leads to regime change, it might throw Iran into ethnic civil war. Without domestic political alternatives to the current leadership, which has consistently and brutally sidelined opposition figures, a political vacuum could emerge. Such political openings tend to erupt into violence between ethnic groups, especially when the groups contributed to the overthrow of the regime that oppressed them.

Third, if Kurdish forces are involved in regime change, Kurds could be considered by Iranian leaders to be separatists. Separatist movements are often triggers for genocide against ethnic groups that advocate autonomy. 

Fourth, in addition to religious and ethnic differences, Iranians hold different opinions about the theocratic regime and the future of the country. For many supporters of the theocratic regime, having their government overthrown and its religious leader assassinated by hostile foreign powers could make future rulers illegitimate.

Regime loyalists will retain access to weapons to oppose future authorities. During the post-war period, Iranians could be endangered by inter-ethnic conflicts, access to weapons, and governmental instability.

Fifth, some form of international intervention could be necessary to protect the transition, a responsibility that the Trump administration does not want to assume since US intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan.

No matter how the war ends, civilians will suffer high costs. Over a thousand Iranians have already been killed as American and Israeli bombs fall on civilian infrastructure. Disregard for civilian safety in the name of military and political objectives can become a source of support for future revenge. This sentiment can be exploited by nationalist and religious leaders to overthrow successor governments, as occurred in Afghanistan.

The U.S., Israel, Iran, and all U.N. member states have the responsibility to protect Iranian civilians and do everything possible to end this war. Without careful planning and support for Iranian democratic forces, Iran could suffer years of instability that would devastate its people and prevent Iran's swift recovery. 

Genocide Alert - Iran.pdf

Download PDF • 723KB