Why a War of “Regime Change” in Iran Would Be a Catastrophe
by John Whitehead
What direction the conflict between Israel and the United States and Iran will take is unknown. As of this writing, the ceasefire between Israel and Iran is holding and the United States has not bombed Iran again since June 22. We can hope this situation continues.
Military conflict among these nations might resume, however. Renewed fighting could take the extreme form of an effort by Israel and/or the United States to overthrow the current Iranian government.
Such an attempt to bring about “regime change” in Iran would be catastrophic. Overthrowing Iran’s government and installing a new one would be extremely difficult to achieve and would likely lead to extremely violent consequences. Further, even if regime change somehow succeeded and led to a stable new Iranian regime, that might not resolve the ongoing conflict over Iran possibly building nuclear weapons.
Threats from Powerful Sources
Israeli and American policymakers have made statements pointing toward the goal of “regime change” in Iran. During Israel’s bombing campaign against Iran, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the Iranian government’s overthrow “could certainly be the result” of the military conflict. He also opined, in reference to Iran’s ruling elite, that “80% of the [Iranian] people will throw these theological thugs out.”
Netanyahu’s address, at the outset of the campaign, to the Iranian people also implied the hope of regime change: “As we achieve our objective [of destroying Iran’s nuclear and military capabilities], we are also clearing the path for you to achieve your freedom,” he said.
US President Donald Trump has also suggested regime change is a possibility. Posting on social media shortly after the US bombing, Trump wrote “It’s not politically correct to use the term, ‘Regime Change,’ but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn’t there be a Regime change???”
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio echoed this sentiment, saying in an TV appearance that “if Iran is committed to becoming a nuclear weapons power, I do think it puts the regime at risk . . . I think it would be the end of the regime if they tried to do that.”
Whether any of these threats will turn into action is anyone’s guess. Threats from the leaders of nations that have already attacked Iran should be taken seriously, though.
The Long, Costly History of Regime Change
The United States and its allies have a history of overthrowing governments and attempting to install new, more friendly ones. The track record of such regime change is a grim one.
In 2001, the United States led an invasion of Afghanistan, overthrowing the Taliban regime. The United States spent the next 20 years trying to support a new regime and defeat a Taliban insurgency. After tens of thousands of deaths, including more than 46,000 Afghan civilians killed by the warring parties and more than 6,000 Americans, and more than $2 trillion spent, the US project in Afghanistan ultimately failed. The US-supported regime collapsed, and the Taliban returned to power in 2021.
In 2003, the United States led an invasion of Iraq, overthrowing Saddam Hussein’s regime. The United States then spent eight years trying to support a new regime and defeat an Iraqi insurgency. The US withdrew from Iraq in 2011 only to return in 2014 to fight the newly emerged ISIS terrorist group. US involvement in Iraq led to hundreds of thousands of deaths, including roughly 200,000 Iraqi civilians killed by the warring parties and more than 8,000 Americans. The war in Iraq, along with related military operations in Syria, cost almost $3 trillion.
In 2011, the United States and its allies carried out a bombing campaign against Libya to support insurgents who eventually overthrew Muammar Qaddafi’s regime. Compared to the Afghanistan and Iraq wars, this regime change war was relatively low cost for the United States: the war lasted about seven months, no Americans died, and the operation cost roughly $1.6 billion.
The war was more costly for the Libyan people, though. The new Libyan government failed to establish effective control over the country, and Libya was soon split by a civil war. Libya remains troubled by armed political conflict to this day. Precisely how many people have died in 14 years of conflict is unknown, but the toll might be very high.
We have no reason to believe that a US war of regime change against Iran would be any less difficult or costly. Such a war against Iran may even be far worse than these earlier wars, for simple reasons of scale.
Iran is very large country, at 1.6 million square kilometers (about the size of Alaska), and a very populous country, at 92 million people. To provide relevant comparisons, Iran is more than double the size of Afghanistan and more than four times as populous as Afghanistan was at the time of the US invasion in 2001. Iran is more than triple the size of Iraq and more than three times as populous as Iraq was at the time of the 2003 US invasion. Iran is actually somewhat smaller than Libya but more than 14 times as populous as Libya was at the time of 2011 war.
Tony Masalonis and Herb Geraghty hold signs
Invading and occupying a country as large and populous as Iran and trying to establish a new regime that could govern the country would be an even bigger challenge than these previous regime changes—and thus would likely be far bloodier and more costly. Beyond the scale of the task, an occupying power and a new regime would have to contend with uniting a country that has various ethnic divisions, such as between the Persian majority and Azerbaijani, Kurdish, and other minorities.
Writing in the Guardian, Patrick Wintour commented that if the current Iranian government is overthrown, “Azerbaijan and the many Kurdish militant movements might see a chance to carve out ethnic enclaves from Iranian territories.”
Beyond all these considerations, proponents of regime change should also contemplate the fact that the disruptions produced by a war in Iran might lead to some of the country’s enriched uranium stockpiles going missing or being seized by groups with their own agendas. A war of regime change in Iran might lead to uranium falling into terrorist hands. War on Iran might thus prove to be a self-fulling prophecy, bringing about the kind of nuclear danger it’s meant to prevent.
Would Even Successful Regime Be Futile?
Finally, another scenario should be considered. Let’s set aside the legitimate concerns about a war of regime change and assume a near-miraculous outcome in which the current Iranian regime is replaced by a stable new one without terrible destruction and loss of life. Even in such a situation, the new Iranian regime might continue to pursue the capacity to build nuclear weapons.
In a debate over Iran, Dan Caldwell, a Marine veteran, made the striking observation that Iran, as a large nation that is ethnically and religiously distinct from its neighbors (being non-Arab and Shia Muslim) may wish to have the power that comes from a nuclear program regardless of what regime rules the country. The current Iranian nuclear program might arise from conditions more enduring than the personalities or ideology of the ruling elite. We cannot know what some hypothetical future regime might do, but Caldwell makes the valuable point that we shouldn’t assume that a different government will mean entirely different policies.
Conclusion
For all these reasons, seeking regime change in Iran would be profoundly unwise. Further, a policy that would probably cost huge numbers of lives and trillions of dollars while likely accomplishing very little is not, in my judgment and I would guess most people’s judgment, a moral policy.
Concerns about Iran or its nuclear program should be addressed diplomatically, which means dealing with the current Iranian regime. Let’s hope those making decisions in the United States and Israel come to realize this.
====================
For more of our posts on how wars are unjustified, see:
The Huge Mistake: The U.S. Joins Israel in Bombing Iran
Gaza War: Outrageous and Foolish
The Preferential Option for Nonviolence in Just War Theory: Opportunities for Just War and Pacifist Collaboration
The Civil War Conundrum, 150 Years Later
Finding Common Ground on and Learning from World War II
Seeing War’s Victims: The New York Times Investigation of Civilian Casualties in Iraq and Syria
Leave a Reply