The Ramadan war is considered a turning point in the decades-long conflict between Washington and Tehran. Using the documents and reports of 40 prominent American think tanks, this article analyzes the theoretical roots and operationalization of the discourse of "regime change" in the foreign policy of the United States. Research findings show that conservative and neo-conservative think tanks such as the Defense of Democracy Foundation, the American Enterprise Institute and the Council on Foreign Relations have designed the intellectual infrastructure of "maximum pressure" as a precursor to subversion since the 1390s. Using the theories of "ethnic division", "dual deterrence" and "intelligent crisis management", this intellectual framework paved the way for direct military action in 2026. However, the scenarios predicted in these think tanks had a significant distance from the field realities, including national solidarity, the inefficiency of the policy of maximum pressure in weakening the foundations of the system, and the geopolitical consequences of proxy wars. Using the method of discourse analysis and comparative analysis of strategic reports, this article shows that the failure of the system change project is not only rooted in executive shortcomings, but also in fundamental cognitive mistakes and theoretical one-sidedness in American decision-making centers.