We wanted regime change in the USSR, but we didn’t do any nation-building.
I am skeptical that the United States will actually do anything directly in Iran. If it does, it’s going to be limited to using some bombers to drop heavy ordnance on an underground nuclear reactor.
Some people are getting very enthusiastic about the prospect of regime change in Iran, but I think it’s a long shot and (despite claims otherwise from the Left and the Right), Israel isn’t really trying for it (despite Netanyahu’s speeches) and doesn’t really have the capabilities for it. Israel would be happy if the Jihadist regime fell, but it’s focused on taking out nukes, ballistic missiles and terrorist elements.
We’re also unlikely to go down that road. This is not a nation-building administration.
Still some people are choosing to sell a misleading narrative. So let’s break down a few things.
Regime change is not necessarily the same thing as nation-building. Post WWII we tend to tie the two together, but it’s not necessarily the case. For example, we maintained sufficient pressure on the USSR for the regime to implode. Regime change happened, but we didn’t then determine the outcome. We made it very clear that we wanted regme change in the USSR and across the ex-Soviet republics. But we didn’t do much in the way of nation-building.
Our failed efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan were very much nation building. And they were disastrous for that reason.
It is possible to topple a government, directly or indirectly, without nation building. It goes without saying that we should not pursue nation building in Iran or any other Muslim country.
Would regime change really be a good idea in Iran considering our past experiences? Wouldn’t we risk unleashing worse problems?
In the Middle East, things can generally always get worse, but it’s hard to see what can really be any worse than an Islamic terrorist state with nukes that intends to pass them on to other terrorist groups. Especially if that regime’s motto is “Death to America”.
I have trouble coming up with any scenarios worse than the current one.
࿗Infidel࿘ says
All that Israel and US want is the Islamic regime to be gone. Unlike the Bush regime that tried to write constitutions for Afghanistan & Iraq & ended up declaring them as islamic countries, we don’t plan to get involved this time
There seem to be 2 parties spearheading plans for new governments in Iran – one led by the former crown prince Reza Pahlavi, and the other led by an MEK leader Maryam Rajavi. While I don’t much like the latter, it should be up to the Iranian people, once they’re rid of Khamenei, to decide which one they want to follow. Hopefully, the next regime will
⮞ Aggressively deislamize Iran
⮞ Establish normal relations w/ both Israel and the US
⮞ Work on reconstructing the country and making it a sane spot in the region
SKA says
I think Maryam died a few years ago. The Mujahideen-e Khalq really was a weird syncretistic Islamo-Marxist group that evolved into a weird cult of personality of the Rajavis. Because of their past alignment with the Saddam regime during the Iraq-Iran war they lost any credibility they may once have had with the Iranian people. I think the younger generation of Iranians are completely fed up with Islam. The MEK group also engaged in a lot of terrorist actions that killed many civilians.
࿗Infidel࿘ says
No, she’s very much alive. Only reason I noticed her was that I read a statement from her about the future of Iran, where she rejected the idea of a return of the monarchy
The MEK was a resistance group in Iran, but like you pointed out, it was Marxist and allied to Saddam, which is why it lost credibility among all Iranians, including those opposed to the regime. They have been on and off terror lists worldwide. Which is why, looking at it closer, while I do believe that Iranians should be the ones determining what sort of a future they should have, the MEK shouldn’t be one of the parties determining its framework
As Hugh pointed out, if the monarchy returns, this time it will be a constitutional monarchy. I’d only be fine w/ it if the dynasty becomes non-muslim. While Reza Pahlavi stated that he is a shi’a of faith, his presumed successor Patrick Ali Pahlavi has practiced a number of religions – Taoism, Zen Buddhism, Advaita Hinduism, Judaism, Christianity & islam over a 40 year period. What struck me was the absence of Zoroastrianism from that list
Patrick says
You can’t pass along atom bomb braintrus, if you’re being bombed and want to survive. Most all of the Muslim doctors of physics, engineering, rocket engineering, and science, have all been killed. How much documentation is available and where is it stored? Hopefully, all is blown to hell!!!
SKA says
There is no need for “nation-building” in the case of Iran because, unlike non-historical “nations” like Iraq or Pakistan (or the even more illusionary “Palestine”) Iran has an historical identity extending back at least 2,500 years. Regime change in Iran would largely be in the form of a more secular nationalistic group of Iranian leaders replacing the current Islamist rulers. A return to the constitutional monarchy of the Pahlavi dynasty will likely produce a secular though nominally Muslim state like Jordan or Turkey. It would likely be another authoritarian regime but one that would be geopolitically aligned with the West and so less of a threat to us.
࿗Infidel࿘ says
I think that by nation-building, they’re talking about building
⮞ Institutions of government and civil society that are divorced from islam
⮞ Rebuilding the economy – the rest of it, and preferably making Iran less dependent on only oil
Yeah, culturally, Iran has a lot, but it harks back to their pre-islamic era
skeptiker says
Israel und die USA sollten nicht die Fehler der Vergangenheit wiederholen, Nationbuilding zu betreiben.
Das einzig Richtige ist, die Atomanlagen und ihr komplettes Waffenarsenal zu zerstören.
Ziel muss sein, dass nie wieder ein Israeli in Luftschutzkeller flüchten muss und nie wieder Geiseln genommen werden können. Dazu gehört die Eliminierung der Hamas, der Hisbollah, der Huthis und das Mullah-Regime. Die IDF hat schon zu viele Opfer zu beklagen. Bringt es endlich zu Ende, zum Wohle aller friedliebenden Völker. Danke Netanjahu und Trump für euer entschlossenes Handeln.
OLD GUY says
As long as Islam exists as the dominate leadership death and violence against all others will take place.
Stive says
Both are high on the agenda but Iran regime change is actually higher than de nuking. Britain has nukes and they are responsible. If Britain becomes an Islamic nation, and they might, then Britain would be a threat needing taken out. It is who controls nukes that counts. A free peace loving Iran with nukes would keep Russia or turkey from invading them in the future.
Only want the nukes gone as afraid trump will save the regime and keep Iran enslaved. If the ez 38 war is really not so many years away, then thank trump for getting us there.
Another issue is if a free Iran soon emerges, then Israel is in better shape, but no so america.
Fee take notice to the extensive economic power in Latin America and they have money and armaments, and some host nations, that Iran hezbolla, Putin and the drug cartel built together. They finance the Wagner group.they keep Russia afloat. They are working inside america and south of america to keep khomeni pledge to destroy america.yes, khomeni will destroy america even from the grave. If trump does not aid Iran regime change I think God will allow america to be destroyed, possibly even if trump does right too, as the people of america are going bad in large numbers.
The innocent of God always sadly suffer.
R G says
Good points. We definitely don’t want another Iraq or Libya, where instead of a Shia terrorist country we get a sunni terrorist country. We wouldn’t want al queda or isis to take over. That’s what concerns us Americans. Definitely destroy their nukes but if the Iranian people want to overthrow the regime that’s up to them, we shouldn’t push the movement.