Attacking Iran could dash hopes for regime change

Instead of encouraging Iranians to topple the ruling regime, US strikes could unite them to defend their country against foreign aggression

Attacking Iran could dash hopes for regime change

The deployment of US President Donald Trump’s so-called “big, beautiful armada” close to Iran’s shores has raised the prospect of the American leader launching a fresh round of military strikes on the country. But even if the White House does press ahead with its threat to attack Iran, there are no guarantees that it will be to the benefit of ordinary Iranians.

The possibility that Trump might be prepared to renew hostilities against Iran has been very much in evidence since the latest wave of anti-government protests swept the country in late December. Protests that were initially focused on the dire state of the Iranian economy, caused by catastrophic falls in the value of the rial, quickly turned into demands for regime change.

When the protests resulted in nationwide violence, with hundreds of protesters reported killed by the security forces, Trump declared that “help was on its way”, and encouraged the protesters to continue with their efforts against the regime.

Trump then appeared to back down from his threat of possible military intervention after receiving assurances from unnamed Iranian officials that the killing of protesters would stop. But since then, the Trump administration has been busily assembling a powerful armada of warships, together with other military assets such as sophisticated air defences.

The aircraft carrier battlegroup, led by the USS Abraham Lincoln, is already in the region, along with other military assets, such as F-15 fighters, which were used in last June’s US attack on Iran’s nuclear sites.

'Time is running out'

In one of his most recent posts on Truth Social, Trump made it clear that he was prepared to launch military action against Tehran if it did not agree with his demand to completely dismantle its nuclear programme and warned that a "massive Armada was heading to Iran" with "speed and violence". "Time is running out", he said, advising Iran to "come to the table".

There are no guarantees that renewed US military action will help to ease the plight of the Iranian people

"A massive Armada is heading to Iran," Mr Trump wrote. "It is moving quickly, with great power, enthusiasm, and purpose. It is a larger fleet, headed by the great Aircraft Carrier Abraham Lincoln, than that sent to Venezuela. And like with Venezuela, it is ready, willing, and able to rapidly fulfil its mission, with speed and violence, if necessary."

"Hopefully Iran will quickly 'Come to the Table' and negotiate a fair and equitable deal - NO NUCLEAR WEAPONS—one that is good for all parties."

For his part, Iran's Foreign Minister, Abbas Araghchi, has said there had been no such negotiations with the US special envoy to the Middle East, Steve Witkoff and warned that Iran's armed forces were ready to "immediately and powerfully" respond to any possible attack by the United States, hours after Trump reiterated a threat to take military action against the country.

Dire implications

With the massive US military build-up in the Gulf region, with around 50,000 US military personnel now said to be stationed in the area, there are genuine concerns about the deepening tensions in the region resulting in all-out war, with all the implications that would have for regional security.

And while Trump has indicated his main priority is to terminate Iran's nuclear programme, there are no guarantees that renewed US military action will help to ease the plight of the Iranian people.

If, for example, US military strikes against Iran were to topple the Islamic Republic, it is unclear what kind of regime would replace it. One possibility being mooted in Washington is that Reza Pahlavi, the son of the former Shah who currently lives in exile in Washington, could serve as an interim leader. But while Pahlavi has many powerful backers within the Trump administration, there are concerns that he lacks a strong following in Iran.

The Iranian people have a long history of opposing foreign interference and haven't forgotten the US-UK role in 1953 that toppled Mossadegh

US policymakers will certainly be keen to avoid a repeat of the chaos and sectarian violence that erupted in countries such as Iraq and Libya following the overthrow of similarly unpopular autocratic regimes. Both Iraq and Libya descended into bitter civil conflict following the removal of Saddam Hussein and Muammar Gaddafi, respectively, and the Trump administration will be keen to avoid a similar outcome in Iran.

Possibility of backfiring

Another important consideration American officials need to take on board in any future confrontation with Iran's ruling regime is whether it will benefit protesters calling for regime change in Tehran, or will simply help to unite the Iranian people to defend their country against foreign aggression.

The Iranian people have a long history of opposing foreign interference in their domestic affairs and have not forgotten the perfidious role American and British intelligence played in orchestrating the 1953 coup that resulted in the overthrow of Iran's democratically-elected Prime Minister, Mohammad Mosaddegh.

Any renewed attempt by the US to achieve regime change in Tehran through military force could prove to be equally counter-productive, a consideration the Trump administration would be well-advised to take on board before engaging in a fresh military confrontation with Iran.

font change