Decision time in Iran: what now?
There are a great many decisions to be made about Iran – by Trump, Netanyahu and his associates, Khamenei, and the Iranian people. In the case of Khamenei, it may be a Biden-esque situation in that the man is 86 years old and perhaps not quite all there:
Israeli source confirms the report from Iran International that has obtained information from a Western intelligence source, according to which Khamenei has been removed from making key decisions due to his poor mental state, and military commanders are hiding the reality of the war from him in order to manage his mental state.
Trump has to decide whether to intervene to damage the underground nuclear site Fordow, by using bunker busters or whatever method is deemed best. Netanyahu likewise, if Israel has an alternative way of destroying or disabling the facility. Both have to decide whether the goal is regime change and also if they will be assassinating Khamenei himself. They also have to consider who or what would replace the mullahtocracy and how to try to make sure something worse won’t take its place. And the Iranian people will need to decide how far they will go to make regime change happen and to install a better government.
Khamenei – or whoever is really in charge – does have the option of unconditional surrender. I can’t imagine that happening, though. It’s almost a cliche to say that theirs is a death cult, and that’s why I very much doubt that surrender will be happening unless the clerics in charge are all killed and someone more secular makes the decision.
In case you’re not aware of the belief system that motivates the mullahs to wish death to Israel and the US, please watch this (I’ve cued up a 2-minute segment that’s relevant):
See also here under the heading “The conquering of Israel.” See also this description of the mullahs’ belief system involving the return of the Mahdi:
Still alive, the 1,155 year-old Muhammad al-Mahdi is patiently biding his time to return and usher in the takeover of the Muslim — and eventually entire — world.
While such traditions may seem harmless enough, Mahdism poses a serious, though vastly overlooked, threat to international security, primarily because its current articulation in Iran requires its adherents to take “proactive” steps to help usher in the Mahdi — most notably by initiating an “apocalyptic” showdown with the “greater” and “lesser” satans, namely, America and Israel. …
In 2015, Mehdi Taeb, a leading cleric and brother of Hossein Taeb, the head of the IRGC’s Intelligence Organization, made clear how they are to “pave the way.” In a speech, he called on IRGC members to “remove the obstacles to the emergence of the Imam of the Age, the most important of which is the existence of the usurper regime of Israel.”
Meanwhile, is this a threat the Iranians can carry out, or is it mere bluster?:
Despite being absolutely routed so far in its war against Israel, what’s left of Iran’s top-level leadership is now threatening a “surprise tonight the world will remember for centuries.” Accompanying that state-run media announcement was a video …
The implication isn’t exactly subtle. Iran is now claiming it has a nuclear weapon to launch at Israel or U.S. positions in the Middle East.
Meanwhile, the Shah’s son has this to say:
… Reza Pahlavi, the exiled crown prince of Iran, says now is the “best opportunity” for the Iranian people to “finally overcome this regime and get rid of it.”
I think he’s right. But will they take the opportunity, and by what method?
On a personal note: I continue to be surprised at how many people thought that Trump would go “Obama lite” in Iran and negotiate an Iran deal that wasn’t much tougher than the previous one. I never thought that, and I think those who did think it underestimated Trump significantly.
“Regime change” is so easy to say, compared to how hard it is to actually do. Whose military is going to invade and occupy Iran, and how?
Of course the people of Iran can change their regime if they really want to, but they have the same power to do that as they ever had. When the thugs stop taking orders, the regime, or any regime, is over. That happens when the thugs lose confidence, and that’s up to the thugs fundamentally. When the thugs feel like other thugs can’t be relied on to guard their backs against the people, it will be over, and not before. That’s not easy to arrange from the outside.
The Crown Prince has a following and I believe is capable of western oriented non-apocalyptic government. They surrender, international “occupation” to dismantle remaining nuke program and removal of excessively enriched uranium. Other restrictions on technology to be removed over time. Make them the Japan of the 21st century.
Tucker Carlson has lost it.
Iranians are not Arabs; however a learned Arab friend of mine observed that the Muslim cultures are probably better suited to benevolent monarchies than to American-style representative democracies. The current Egyptian regime meets this model; al Sissi is not a king, but rules in a similar fashion. Perhaps the Shah and some kind of parliament might work in Iran.
If we could wave a magic wand and make Iran a constitutional monarchy without getting tens of thousands of people killed I’d be on board. Easier to talk about than to arrange from outside.
To my understanding the Ayatollah Khamenei has responded directly to Pres. Trump’s demand of “unconditional surrender”, saying (I gist here): *No. Never. Iran cannot and will not surrender but will fight to an end.*
Very well then. What is next?
Well, what is prior? 1) The US decision maker will not accept Iranian nuclear weapons possession, and 2) Iran will not acceed their aim toward nuclear weapons production.
Israel, in turn, aims to destroy in detail all elements of Iran’s nuclear weapons production. All. However, though Israel may be capable in this regard, yet it may prove not (with the buried Fordow facility most prominent here).
The US may have the answer to the Fordow complex. Perhaps, after allowing Israel to embark upon an attempt to destroy Fordow, and supposing Israel is dissatisfied with their efforts, I believe then (and only then) the US may strike that site in order to destroy it.
If the US does strike that site, Iran has declared it will attack US interests and allies in turn. That act, the US has declared, would be a terrible mistake on Iran’s part, bringing further destruction upon Iran from the US.
Regime change, I think, is simply a non sequitur as regards US policy. Israeli policy is another matter altogether.
I think we want to account for all the uranium. Hard to do after you blow the place up. The regime is the proper target now.
I’ll repeat what I said last week, which is that the Shah was pro-American, secular, and benevolent toward non-Muslims (Jews in particular) in Iran. Granted he was not so benevolent toward those who threatened his regime, but I think he was as good as one could hope to get in that part of the world. The crown prince in exile seems to have a similar bent, as well as a popular following. So I think the best possible outcome would be his triumphal return, with a major housecleaning of all the zealots, and a return to secular rule. If that’s “regime change,” so be it, but I would call it more of a restoration.
Two thoughts: It doesn’t make much sense to start what Israel has started without finishing it. Set the Iranian nuclear program back to zero. I hope that Israel can take out Fordow or, if they cannot, that we do.
Also – re: regime change – just make sure that whatever regime is in power after this lacks means to threaten its neighbors.
–Chases Eagles
Maybe so, but that isn’t really the issue.
Regime change is not automatically a failure, but it almost always does require occupation and substantial investment in ground forces. South Korea, West Germany and East Germany, Japan, etc. Success is possible but not guaranteed, because if you want your occupation to be temporary you have to install some kind of replacement regime. It doesn’t have to be a liberal Western democracy, but it does have to be functional.
Attempts at regime change without occupation almost invariably fail. Libya comes to mind. Gaddafi was removed but the only result was chaos and an armed power struggle to replace him.
Occupying Iran would be a huge challenge, even for Israel and America working together, and the leftists in both countries would reflexively side with the mullahs, as we saw in Iraq and Afghanistan and Russia during the Cold War.
(The only reason Western lefties support Ukraine is because it initiated under Biden and Trump has not gone all-in on it. If Trump did, they would find an excuse to side with Putin.)
So, I don’t see such an occupation as a particularly realistic option. But if we just knock the mullahs out and leave, there’s no guarantee they won’t rise again, or be replaced by something worse.
It’s probably impossible to 100% eliminate Iran’s nuclear program. But it can be beaten down and down and down.
Now, maybe if the mullahs make a pragmatic conclusion that it’s become more trouble than it’s worth, something might be worked out. But I’m not sure that’s a realistic possibility either.
It’s a messy situation that may simply not have a good solution.
One of America, and Iran’s, and the world’s great misfortunes was that the President of the United States in 1979 was Jimmy Carter. Carter had truckloads of sincere good intentions, and to his credit, he recognized several serious problems with how things were being done. To his discredit, he had utopian visions of solutions. He wanted American foreign policy to be based purely on moral considerations, with no pragmatic compromises, and he just couldn’t bring himself to accept that reality isn’t that way.
He backed the Shah enough to enrage anti-Western elements in Iran, but not enough to let him defeat the mullahs. He was so force-averse that by 1979 the world had dismissed him as being weak. (Even a President who genuinely wants to avoid war has to at least project the impression that he might be willing to kill his enemy.)
But to be fair to Carter, the U.S. military was in a sad state in the late 1970s, mostly because of political failure in Washington, D.C. So Carter’s reluctance to use force was not without foundation, too.
Although the tragedy of desert one regretably helped out carter he showed no better judgement in the future notably with arafat and co also elements in south africa along with others
Of course they learned all the wrong lessons when it came to libya effectively empowering al queda operatives like belhaj and bin qumu
This was the so called arab spring
People forget there are more examples of regime change than usually recalled, when great powers get involved. I couldn’t begin to list the S American cases we’ve done just that. Or worldwide, where the Brits did. (It’s too often forgotten that the Second Afghan War was a British success.)
The outcomes have been mixed, of course. But the 100% negative portrayal is just as inaccurate as the rosy optimism of Bush II.
Disraeli would not have been tossed out if the Afghan war had been such a success, ironically gladstone came in and invaded egypt and that had 70 years of impact till nasser
South america operations also hit and miss for every good result like chile there was forbes burnham who adopted marxism (and welcomed jim jones)
The soviets thought disposing of amin would solve their problem as they would do the same with dudayev nearly 20 years later
There is almost zero appetite on either side of the US political spectrum for Nation Building in Iran. Neither the Israelis or the Europeans have the military for it.
It’s a pipe dream.
Knock out that Nuke site and let the chips fall where they fall.
@Eeyore:I couldn’t begin to list the S American cases we’ve done just that. Or worldwide, where the Brits did.
Iran has 85 million people. More than France or the UK, about the same as Germany. It’s not a banana republic where you can fly El Caudillo Sleazo into Hawaiian exile and replace him with El Jefe Maximo whenever United Fruit feels like it.
Perhaps you should go through that list and look for any external regime changes done to nations of comparable size to Iran in the last 50 years.
Do not assume that since you do not see how Israel alone can take out the Fordow facility, that it lacks the ability to do so. Many military capabilities are unseen until exposed through use. Also, sabotage could render the facility uninhabitable. Not necessary to destroy a facility to render it useless.
No one is arguing for nation-building in Iran.
The Pottery Barn Rule — You break it, you bought it — has expired.