TheAltWorld Why Trump should think twice about seeking another ‘quick victory’ in Iran
A regime-change attempt could easily backfire on its proponents, as the Iranian people remain averse to foreign interference
The recent turmoil in Iran neither triggered regime change, nor set the stage for a Venezuela-style coup. Iranian security forces used heavy-handed tactics, shutting down the internet and curbing live coverage of the protests, in an attempt to prevent further mobilisation.
Iran also neutralised thousands of satellite-fed Starlink systems smuggled into the country, likely by the US and Israel through their assets on the ground.
What really happened in the Iranian streets and why, along with how many protesters and members of the country’s security forces died, are all subject to conflicting narratives – but the reasonable assumption is that the numbers were shockingly high, especially among protesters. We will likely know more in the coming weeks.
Despite Israel’s insistent urging, however, there was no US military strike to take down Tehran’s top leadership. It’s not clear whether this was because the US lacked sufficient military assets in the area, or because the army could not guarantee President Donald Trump the type of quick and decisive victory he loves.
We should also not forget that Trump perceives regional outcomes through a highly distorted lens. After securing a Gaza ceasefire deal last October, he boasted that he had unlocked peace in the region after 3,000 years of conflict.
Of course, this is fantasy, unless we accept that when Israel bombs the hell out of the region there is peace, but when any other country does the same, there is war. The US military might have objected to acting on the basis of such an unrealistic view.
Another reasonable assumption is that Trump heeded the warnings of US allies in the region – such as Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey – who urged caution amid the possible destabilising and unmanageable scenarios a US strike could have created.
Nightmare scenario
By now, everyone should be aware that with Trump, there is only one certainty: constant uncertainty. The hectic days in Davos amid his threats over Greenland underscore this reality. And now, after Trump’s initial hesitation, massive US military assets are headed towards Iran. In other words, the US-(Israeli?) strike might have just been postponed, not abandoned.
And in this situation the EU is institutions just added fuel to the fire of escalation by listing the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) as a terrorist organisation without fully realising what negative precedent they just set with their decision.
Regardless, one thing seems certain: the collapsed Iranian state that some US and Israeli hawks dream of in their wildest fantasies is a far more terrifying prospect for the region’s overall stability than the current order under the Islamic Republic’s iron-fisted rule. The chaos that would follow its collapse would make the Iraq quagmire look like a cakewalk.
A softer regime change – even if such a prospect was realistic and possible – to a dynasty that was already exhausted 50 years ago, or to non-existent opposition forces, would also be a leap in the dark that might easily turn into the nightmarish collapse scenario outlined above.
The US-Israeli regime-change dream is further complicated by the basic fact that it seems hard to find, within the Iranian power and security structure, people ready to sell out Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, as Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro’s most trusted aides did in Caracas earlier this month.
Furthermore, the Iranian leadership is unlikely to be fooled again by the Americans as it was last June, when US-Iran talks had been scheduled in Oman within days of Israel’s attack. Israel finally fulfilled its decades-long objective of dragging the US into a military confrontation with Iran, with Trump later claiming to have obliterated the country’s nuclear programme.
Today, the potential for renewed Israeli-US aggression against the Iranian leadership has two implications.
The first is that the strikes last June, as we already suspected at the time, were not decisive. In confidential discussions with Israeli sources, I bluntly asked whether the US strikes had destroyed Iran’s nuclear programme; they evaded the question by noting that the most important outcome had been the psychological shock to the Iranian leadership. Translation: there was no evidence to support Trump’s bombastic claims of annihilating Iran’s nuclear capabilities.
The second, more disturbing implication, is that Israeli leaders and their supporters in Washington now believe that the time is ripe to go all-in on regime change in Tehran.
Political survival
After Venezuela and the still-vague understanding achieved in Davos about Greenland, Trump might have arrived at the conclusion that another quick victory against a nation that has been a US nemesis for the last half-century could help to avoid what is really keeping him awake at night: a defeat in one or both houses of Congress in midterm elections this coming November.
While regime change in Tehran could propel him into the history books, at least according to the US-western perspective, as the first successful president on this issue in decades, it is far from guaranteed that such an outcome would deliver him another domestic victory, as his approval ratings have plummeted at home.
Even here, there are two sensitive variables at play. Firstly, as outlined before, there are serious doubts that a quick, bloodless, effective and friendly regime change in Tehran could succeed according to US and Israeli metrics.
Iranians are historically allergic to foreign influence or hegemony. A regime-change attempt could easily backfire on its proponents. Once again, the tough lessons of Iraq should be noted here.
Second, considering the high levels of nationalistic sentiment in Iran, even in the most desirable scenario, are the US, Israel and their Arab allies sure that it’s in their own interests to push this country of 90 million people – one with a highly skilled population, and massive oil and gas reservers – into becoming a vibrant economy, and in due course, an effective democracy, in the true sense of this term?
What if a new Iran sovereignly decides to continue pursuing a nuclear programme, and to cultivate its own sphere of influence, in the model of western states like the US, Israel, the UK and France? Why would a democratic Iran stay idle while regional powers like Turkey, Saudi Arabia and the UAE promote their own regional spheres of influence?
As to Trump’s concerns over his political survival after November: his chances could obviously increase if he were to finally rein in the nasty ICE militia he has unleashed in the American streets, triggering widespread protests, even among traditional Maga supporters. Such a move could affect the midterm results far more than any “quick victories” abroad.
0 thoughts on “Why Trump should think twice about seeking another ‘quick victory’ in Iran”