The United States can’t do much to ensure that democracy will emerge after the potential end of Iran’s theocracy.
At the end of July, a broad spectrum of Iranian dissidents gathered in Munich for an event demonstrating a united opposition to the Islamist regime in Tehran. What to do with the Iranian regime has been the subject of much debate across the political spectrum since the Israeli and US strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities over the last few months. The strikes demonstrated the weakness of the Iranian government, raising the question of regime change or transition. While the United States and its allies should hope that a post-Mullah Iran is a thriving democracy, policymakers should prepare for a power vacuum.
The ease with which Israel and the United States struck the Iranian nuclear program and achieved air superiority demonstrates the debilitated state of the Iranian regime. For the Iranian people, the implications are clear. Thousands have been killed, tortured, and oppressed at the hands of the Ayatollahs. Moreover, there is reason to believe that the views of the regime are not aligned with those of many Iranians. In other words, the average Iranian is far more moderate than the fundamentalists in control of the government.
What is less clear is why the West should care or even prefer a different regime. To begin with, there is the issue of terrorism. In the decades since the Islamic Revolution, hundreds of people across the West have been killed, injured, and kidnapped by Iran and its proxies. Despite recent actions by Israel against Iranian proxies, these groups remain threats to Western military personnel and civilians.
Second is the nuclear question. Iran has made clear its desire to destroy Israel and harm US interests in the region. Given Iran’s persistent violent rhetoric and actions towards Western nations, it is possible that Iran would threaten to use nuclear weapons to achieve its objectives.
Israel and the United States demonstrated the capability to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities, but just because they were successful this time doesn’t mean that will always be the case. A pro-Western regime that doesn’t want to nuke American and Israeli cities is preferable to bombing nuclear facilities every few years. Struggle with the United States and its allies is a core interest and raison d’être of the mullahs, and they aren’t going to stop just because a few facilities were blown up.
This doesn’t mean that the United States, Israel, or any other Western nation should send soldiers on a mission to force regime change on Iran. If Iran is to move on from its current Islamic theocracy, that change has to come from the Iranian people. Examples of failed regime change operations include Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Afghanistan. The United States spent thousands of lives and billions of dollars trying to bring democracy to nations that had never had it.
A democratic, pro-Western regime in Iran would certainly be preferable to the current state of affairs. Ideally, the unified group of dissidents that gathered in Munich will be part of a transition away from Islamist theocracy and toward democracy. However, policymakers would be wise to proceed with caution. There were high hopes for Iraq and Afghanistan, but the former was one of the breeding grounds for ISIS, and the Taliban retook the latter. There’s no telling what extremist groups may spring from the woodwork to contend for the future of Iran should the Ayatollahs fall.
So what should the West do? From a military standpoint, Washington should not attempt regime change. US interests are strictly in stopping Iran from building a nuclear weapon and ending its support for terrorism. However, if a popular uprising ensues, it is in the United States’ interest to support it.
Sanctions on the Iranian government and intelligence-sharing with dissidents are among the measures we can take. Specifically, Iran’s oil industry needs to be targeted through secondary sanctions on importers. The Iranian economy is dependent on oil revenue, so sanctioning its oil imports will starve the regime of the funds it would need to crush a rebellion. Most importantly, policymakers need to remember that regime change is the right of the Iranian people. US troops should not be involved in regime change or nation-building.
If chaos does ensue, the US would be wise to become involved indirectly. Intelligence involvement with the Iranian Kurds would be a good start, as the United States has previously worked with them against ISIS. Such a partnership would give our defense officials eyes and ears on the ground to keep an eye out for anti-American terrorists.
For decades, Iran has been a major source of terrorism across the Middle East, providing weapons and funds to various terrorist groups. Iran’s nuclear program is a further demonstration of the regime’s desire to foment chaos. Thousands of Iranian dissidents are working toward a future free from the dictatorship of the mullahs.
While the West should support them in their endeavors, this is the Iranian people’s fight in the end. Only they can decide the future of their country. Should the Ayatollah be deposed, it is just as likely that chaos will replace him, as has happened in other countries. We should hope the opposition succeeds in forming a more inclusive government, but we should prepare for the worst.
About the Author: Matthew Cookson
Matt Cookson is an alumnus of the Young Voices Contributor Program and was a Middle East History and Policy Fellow with Young Voices. He also works in the supply chain for a US Defense Contractor. His commentary has appeared in the Mises Institute, Real Clear Politics, the National Interest, Providence Magazine, China Source, and the Idaho Freedom Foundation. You can follow him on X @MattCookson95.
Image: Travers Lewis / Shutterstock.com.
