Israel’s failure to defend its borders during Hamas’ Oct. 7 incursion has been followed by impressive military successes. Iran’s proxies, groups like Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon, have both been weakened to the point that none of them can offer effective resistance. With President Donald Trump’s announcement of a ceasefire between Iran and Israel, it looks like Israel has added another military success.

Israel claimed that its attack on Iran was necessary because its intelligence showed the country was moving aggressively to construct a nuclear weapon. That may be true, but it’s also possible that Israel simply saw an opportunity to attack Iran at a moment when its proxies across the region had all been degraded significantly and the country’s ability to respond was particularly weak.

President Trump’s decision to join the attack deepened the damage to Iran, even if it risked widening the conflict. But he seems to have avoided that outcome and also made it less likely that Iran ever achieves nuclear capability. He has so far managed the conflict well and was right that Iran couldn’t be allowed to possess nuclear weapons.

A nuclear-armed Iran would fundamentally change the balance of power in the Middle East and threaten American interests around the world. That threat would initially come from Iran’s ability to share nuclear weapons with the remnants of its proxies and later from ballistic missiles as the country’s capabilities progressed. If Iran could threaten the United States with a nuclear response, our ability to contain it by threatening the use of force would be severely degraded.

Iran knows this, and it’s why the regime has pursued capabilities for the past three decades that would allow it to quickly build a nuclear weapon. President Trump’s attack on Iran was opportunistic and took advantage of the favorable situation created by Israeli actions, but it effectively furthered America’s goal of preventing Iran from developing nuclear arms.

The risk of renewed hostilities and a general war in the Middle East is tied to the Iranian regime’s assessment of its prospects for survival. If the regime believes the war is over and it assesses it can remain in power, it will carefully calibrate its actions to avoid restarting the conflict. If the Iranian regime assesses, however, that regime change is the real goal of U.S. and Israeli actions, it may conclude that it doesn’t have anything to lose by restarting the conflict.

Like all dictatorial regimes, the survival of the system and the maintenance of power is the Iranian government’s priority. The regime will be willing to end the conflict, even after suffering significant casualties and widespread destruction, if it believes it can maintain its grip on power. The best way for us to encourage the ceasefire to hold is to make it clear that any escalation by Iran may force us to seek regime change, but regime change isn’t our current goal. Our goal is the elimination of Iran’s nuclear and ballistic missile programs and to set favorable conditions for follow-on negotiations.

Most of our nation’s leaders have been measured in their response to questions about regime change, and President Trump was wise to withhold his support from an Israeli plan to target Iran’s Supreme Leader. That act would have galvanized Iranian support for their war effort and might have immediately widened the conflict. His attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities was bold, but his actions have so far been limited and controlled.

Iran’s attacks on U.S. facilities were ineffective, but if we allow the regime to save face by telling its people that their country responded forcefully to our attacks and is entering negotiations as an equal, we increase the likelihood of Iranian concessions and long-term success. If we try to destabilize the regime by pointing out its failures to the Iranian people, we risk backing the regime into a corner and encouraging it to take actions that might restart the conflict. Senator Ted Cruz’s call for regime change increased the risk of a wider war. As the conflict winds down, that type of rhetoric won’t be helpful.

Iran’s leaders may interpret any additional comments like Cruz’s as nothing more than bluster, and America’s overall discussion about regime change has so far been restrained. This matters because there are hardline factions in Iran’s government that will use comments like Cruz’s to make the case that Iran’s regime is in a fight for survival. If Iran’s Supreme Leader is convinced of that position, he might be inclined to restart the conflict, something we can avoid if we stop talking about regime change and continue signaling our willingness to find a workable accommodation with the current Iranian regime.

Prior to 1979, Iran was a close ally of the United States and a friend to Israel. Iran’s people are well educated, and many are well disposed to be friendly toward the West. Iran is not a backward place, even if its current government is backward-looking and selfish. One day, the Iranian regime will fall and be replaced by a government more worthy of Iran’s history and the potential of its people. But our experiences over the last 25 years should remind us that regime change is best when it happens organically and not at the point of an American or Israeli gun. If the Iranian people revolt against the regime, we should seriously consider supporting them and celebrate their courage. And if they don’t, because the time isn’t right and the regime is still too strong, we should continue our efforts to contain the current government and deny it the world’s most dangerous weapons. One day, the Iranian people will replace their government in the same way the Soviet Union crumbled from within. In the meantime, our job is to manage the situation for as long as necessary and avoid the worst possible outcomes of a wider conflict or an Iranian nuclear bomb.

Colin Pascal (colinjpascal@outlook.com) is a retired Army lieutenant colonel who spent most of his 20-year military career filling strategic intelligence assignments. He’s a graduate student in the School of Public Affairs at American University in Washington, D.C., and lives in Annapolis.