By now you’ve likely seen the viral video of an Iranian television reporter fleeing off-screen as Israel bombed the TV station where she was recording live. As the Quincy Institute’s Adam Weinstein quickly pointed out, Israel's attack on the broadcasting facility is directly out of the regime change playbook, “meant to shake public confidence in the Iranian government's ability to protect itself” and by implication, Iran’s citizenry.
Indeed, in the United States there is a steady drumbeat of media figures and legislators who have been loudly championing Israel’s apparent desire to overthrow the regime of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei.
If you haven't seen the barrage of tweets, cable news appearances, or hawkish op-eds calling for the U.S. to join Israel in its war on Iran, look no further than John Bolton’s recent Wall Street Journal piece, headlined “Iran's Ayatollahs Are Weaker Than Ever.” Bolton hammers on about how this is the moment for “overthrowing the Ayatollahs,” affirming in no uncertain terms that “America's declared objective should be just that.” In other words, and to no one's surprise, Bolton is back on his B.S. — pushing for regime change in Iran.
But here's the thing: regime change operations don't work, and there's a long history of failed American interventions to prove it.
Take, for example, the dozens of covert regime change operations the United States undertook during the Cold War. Over 60% of these failed in their goal to replace the targeted country’s political leadership, though in many of these attempts countless lives were lost and diminished as a result of American efforts. Even the so-called “successful” regime change operations were ineffective, given that in about half of these cases the U.S.-installed government was eventually overthrown, often violently.
Regime change operations also have had the effect of keeping the United States bogged down in irresponsible conflicts that have little connection to the American national interest. U.S. behavior during the Vietnam War provides a case in point. The United States first got involved with supporting the government of Ngô Đình Diệm, the president of the Republic of Vietnam (South Vietnam), in the mid-1950s. By late 1963, it was clear that Diệm and his administration were profoundly unpopular, and U.S. officials greenlighted a regime change operation that “succeeded” in assassinating and replacing Diệm, but ultimately did little to stabilize South Vietnam or increase support for the government.
In fact, the operation kept the United States committed to a South Vietnamese state that was doomed to collapse. Ironically, of course, the United States’ primary strategic goal in southeast Asia was to — you guessed it — force regime change in the Democratic Republic of Vietnam (North Vietnam) — a goal Americans were never able to accomplish.
Tragically, the disastrous experience in Vietnam did little to cure America’s addiction to regime change. Throughout the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, U.S. forces attempted to force regime changes in a diversity of countries, from Iraq to Portugal, from Liberia to Angola, and from Haiti to Serbia.
Predictably, the Global War on Terror was riddled with regime change operations that — surprise — ended up undermining U.S. interests and one of the stated reasons for American involvement in the first place: bringing democracy to the broader Middle East. Disbanding the Ba'ath Party in Iraq led to insurgency and ISIS; assisting in the removal of Muammar Gaddafi created a power vacuum that resulted in Libya descending into a devastating civil war; and the 20-year war in Afghanistan, which began with the removal of the Taliban, ended with the group’s return.
Direct U.S. participation in Israel’s war against Iran wouldn't even be America's first rodeo with regime change in that country. Back in 1953, the CIA, in coordination with the United Kingdom’s MI6, orchestrated a coup against Iran's democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh, installing the Shah in his place. And what did that result in? The 1979 Islamic Revolution — driven partly by fury over decades of American interference in Iran — gave us the very theocratic government Bolton and many others are now obsessed with toppling. In other words, the regime we’re being told we need to overthrow only seized power because of our last attempt to enact regime change in Iran.
And yet, if you’ve watched even a minute of the latest 24-hour news cycle, you’ve likely heard the phrase “regime change” dozens of times. But why should the United States pursue regime change in Iran? The threat of the country obtaining nuclear weapons? Not to dismiss a legitimate concern, but fear-mongering headlines about Iran’s nuclear capabilities have been gracing the front pages of major newspapers for the entirety of millennials’ lifetimes.
And weren’t we just participating in negotiations with Iran over its nuclear program that, by all accounts, were going smoothly — that is, until Israel's targeted attacks took out key Iranian officials, including Ali Shamkhani, one of Iran's top negotiators?
Even if we ignore the fact that Israel is very clearly calling the shots when it comes to a war with Iran, it's worth highlighting just how devastating pursuing a regime change in the country could be. The combined population of Iraq and Afghanistan in 2003 was just 50 million; Iran's current population is approximately 88 million. The combined size of Iraq and Afghanistan is 421,000 square miles; Iran is a whopping 636,000 square miles. In this context, regime change would likely result in nothing more than death and deracination for the people of Iran; even if the United States desired to transform Iran into a liberal capitalist democracy, it is very difficult to imagine how this could be accomplished.
It almost goes without saying: Americans must resist being dragged into yet another disastrous military adventure in service of a strategy that doesn’t work, and never will.
