Banking on regime change in Tehran is a risky wager 

Photo: AP Images

IT

sometimes seems like yesterday that Shimon Peres was selling Israelis his fantasy of a “new Middle East,” in which Israel and a Palestinian state would dwell in harmony, peace, and prosperity, with Israel becoming the Luxembourg of the Levant.

The Israeli media projected the process one giant step further, daydreaming of an era when Israelis could drive to Europe via Lebanon, Syria, and Turkey, making a pit stop in the Damascus souk to eat hummus and baklava.

Even after the sudden death of the Assad regime, kashrus agencies are not scampering to arrange supervision in Damascus.

According to Al-Jazeera, Syria’s new ruler — previously known by his nom de guerre, Abu Mohammad al-Julani, before reverting to his birth name of Ahmad al-Shaara — has declared that under his rule, Syria will be “a beacon for the Islamic nation.”

How that plays out for the beleaguered Syrian people remains to be seen. Regime change is a laborious and tortuous process with no guarantee of success. A country destroyed by 13 years of civil war and more than 50 years of despotic rule won’t be rebuilt in a day. And despite al-Shaara’s second declaration that he’s not seeking conflict with Israel, don’t expect him to appear on the White House lawn any time soon to join the Abraham Accords.

Fantasy peddlers are not the only ones who believe regime change in Syria will produce results.

Stone-cold realists have set their sights on a second target for regime change — Iran.

A bipartisan group of senators, led by Texas Republican Ted Cruz, New Jersey Democrat Cory Booker, and New Hampshire Democrat Jeanne Shaheen — whose husband Bill is a Lebanese-American — all called for regime change when addressing an event last week hosted by the Organization for Iranian American Communities.

Some Trump supporters contend that the overriding goal of Trump’s maximum pressure policy on Iran will be to coerce regime change. However, before the election, Trump dashed that idea, telling an Iranian-American interviewer: “We can’t get totally involved in all that.”

Trump is right to be wary. Regime change doesn’t come easy, especially when forced by outsiders. America’s track record in fomenting regime change is abysmal.

The Cato Institute, a think tank in Washington, D.C., that advocates globally for individual liberty and limited government, notes that the US government has toppled more than 30 foreign leaders since the start of the 20th century. Benjamin Denison, a foreign policy expert and former researcher at the University of Notre Dame International Security Center, published a policy analysis for Cato in January 2020, citing academic research by political scientists Alexander Downes and Jonathan Monten, who reviewed 28 of those 30 cases. Just three proved successful in building a lasting democracy.

Lasting Misconceptions

Denison’s essay noted one stark example of how it can backfire, even when aimed elsewhere. He said that North Korea closely followed developments in Libya, where Obama administration–led military intervention ousted the tyrant Muammar Gaddafi.

“The North Koreans concluded that only nuclear weapons can prevent regime change, which made a choice to continue their nuclear program easier,” Denison wrote.

In deciding how to deal with Iran, decision-makers must rid themselves of two misconceptions.

First, no matter who rules Iran, they will seek to become a nuclear power. Iran first obtained an atomic reactor fueled by highly enriched uranium in 1953 under the Eisenhower administration’s “Atoms for Peace” program, some 26 years before Iran’s current Islamic Revolutionary Government led by ayatollahs deposed the Shah. Eisenhower thought a stronger Iran would protect US interests against Soviet influence in the region.

The more significant misconception is that the ayatollahs imposed Islam on the Iranians, and a new regime would restore old Persian customs and religion to Iran.

The ayatollahs indeed enforced a more extreme brand of Islam. Still, Iran embraced Islam shortly after Muhammad established the religion in the 7th century, when Muslim tribes began conquering Persia. Islam consolidated its grip in Iran between 800 and 1100 of the common era. The Safavid dynasty made Shiite Islam the empire’s official religion in the 1500s, and today, up to 95% of Iranians belong to a sect known as Twelver Islam, which means that the 12th Imam, who they believe has been in hiding since the 9th century, will reappear and exact revenge against the nonbelievers of the world, mainly the Little Satan (Israel) and the Great Satan (the US).

Even if the younger generation chafes under the most severe restrictions and succeeds in changing or reforming the regime from within, their religious beliefs will remain intact, and so will any new government’s drive to actualize their nuclear ambitions.

Recycling Bad Ideas

Both Israel and the incoming Trump administration can draw lessons from this when coordinating strategy to deal with Iran.

Iran is far weaker than it was a year ago. The IDF battles in Gaza and south Lebanon have destroyed much of the military capabilities of Iran’s proxies, Hamas and Hezbollah. The loss of Syria as a land bridge between Iran and Lebanon (via Iraq) is a significant defeat for Iran.

The fact that two Iranian missile attacks on Israel failed to do strategic damage while Israel’s limited retaliations inflicted enormous military losses on Iran further humiliated a regime that still harbors fantasies of subduing Israel first and America last.

As long as Iran pursues nuclear weapons, the threat remains tangible. The proverbial wounded bear can still be destructive. Two weeks ago, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) reported that Iran was dramatically accelerating its enrichment of nuclear fuel to 60%, not far from the 90% required to produce a nuclear weapon.

Some foreign press reports claim Israel is scheming covertly with the incoming administration to leverage the last month of the lame-duck Biden administration to launch a preemptive attack against Iranian nuclear sites. None of this can be confirmed, although Prime Minister Netanyahu hinted that something was in the works when he explained, without elaborating, that one reason he accepted the US-French-sponsored ceasefire in Lebanon was so that Israel could focus on Iran.

Banking on regime change in a country that embraced Islam hook, line, and sinker 1,400 years ago is a very low-percentage move and quite dangerous. Israel must also resist calls for regime change in Gaza and Palestinian-controlled areas of Judea and Samaria. The idea that regime change in the form of a reconstituted Palestinian Authority or defanged Hamas would bring peace or even stability to a new Middle East is an old notion that has been debunked.

If it hasn’t worked historically for the US, it won’t work for Israel either.

Not that America is looking to build democracy in Iran. The main goal must be to prevent a radical Islamic regime from producing or obtaining nuclear weapons, and that will require destroying Iran’s military assets and capabilities so that they are no longer a threat, no matter who rules their land.

(Originally featured in Mishpacha, Issue 1041)