(Since most of the leaders of Western Civilization seem to achieve their position by favoritism of DSOS - is it any wonder they're not only incoherent, but incompetent? - CL)
A very common mistake often seen throughout military history is projection, or analyzing the enemy as if it were a mirror image of one’s own forces. Both Israel and the USA have very thin strategic and command benches, which is why they assume that taking out the top layer or two of enemy leadership will lead to complete confusion and disarray.
Which, to be fair, would likely happen in the case of either country suffering the loss of its leadership. But it’s clear that Iran and China are both very well prepared in an institutional sense for rapid leadership transitions that will avoid the confusion and military paralysis that are the primary objective of decapitation strikes. Russia, perhaps not so much, which may account for the monomaniacal focus on President Putin’s well-being, although my suspicion is that his successor will be less patient with the West and more hardline.
Regime change works when you’ve got your candidate all ready and in position to assume command and negotiate a surrender. But it can’t when you don’t have a candidate, and worse, the enemy is already set up to make a series of orderly transitions if necessary.
