As Trump Floats Regime Change in Iran, Past US Attempts Offer Warnings

Trump’s recent suggestion of regime change in Iran draws attention to past U.S. involvement in the Middle East, emphasizing lessons learned from those efforts. Historical success often faded into years of chaos, raising concerns about a similar fate if the U.S. pursues a similar path in Iran. Airstrikes and foreign-backed opposition have not proved sufficient for lasting change.

As Donald Trump discusses the idea of regime change in Iran, it’s worth reflecting on previous U.S. attempts to reshape the Middle East. These historical efforts highlight possible dangers linked to escalating involvement in the ongoing Iran-Israel conflict, particularly after a series of U.S. bombings of Iranian nuclear sites, followed by retaliatory missile strikes from Iran targeting U.S. bases in Qatar.

Trump’s recent comments on social media raised eyebrows. He questioned, “If the current Iranian regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn’t there be a regime change???” Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt emphasized that Trump hasn’t changed his stance on military involvement, despite calls for a more aggressive approach if Tehran continues its nuclear pursuits and refuses to engage diplomatically.

Leavitt also implied that legitimate change in Iran might come from within, suggesting a potential popular uprising instead of direct U.S. intervention. However, this calls to mind the challenging history of U.S. regime-change efforts that have often led to long-term instability rather than immediate success.

Historically, initial gains in conflicts – like those in Afghanistan and Iraq – faded quickly. Within months of the 9/11 attacks, the U.S. managed to dislodge the Taliban and invade Iraq, enabling a swift military victory over Saddam Hussein in 2003. Yet these successes were short-lived, leading to years of intense conflict. The Taliban eventually resurfaced after the chaotic U.S. withdrawal in 2021, while Iraq descended into deadly sectarian violence.

While Trump boasts of Israel’s success in neutralizing significant Iranian military capabilities, experts remind us that airstrikes alone hardly guarantee successful change. Take Libya, for instance, where Gadhafi’s forces resisted NATO air operations for months. No significant insurgent groups currently exist in Iran that could directly challenge the Revolutionary Guard, raising the question of whether ground intervention by U.S. or Israeli forces is a viable option.

The prospect of a split in Iran’s security forces could foment insurgency, but it risks plunging the country into civil unrest. Many ordinary Iranians have voiced frustrations with their government amid recent protests, yet history illustrates that foreign assaults can sometimes rally nationalistic sentiments, as exhibited during Iraq’s invasion of Iran in 1980.

Additionally, there are notable concerns regarding Iranian opposition groups in exile. Many of these figures once championed the U.S. invasion of Iraq and may lack grassroots support. Names like Reza Pahlavi, the son of the ousted shah, arise in discussions, yet could face skepticism from Iranians who remember his family’s repressive past. If he were to ascend to power via foreign military intervention, it remains uncertain whether he’d garner widespread acceptance.

Lastly, chaos often prevails following regime changes based on military intervention. The collapse of governance in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya has led to a power vacuum filled by armed factions with varying objectives, complicating everything further. Countries nearby have historically supported proxies, exacerbating conflicts and often leading to substantial civilian displacement. Trump’s contemplation of regime change in Iran risks delving into another cycle of upheaval, following the grim lessons of the past.

In summary, Trump’s musings on Iranian regime change evoke stark reminders of previous U.S. interventions in the Middle East that led to long-lasting chaos and instability. Historical trends warn against overly simplistic solutions, as initial military successes often give way to complex challenges. The risk remains that any new approach could spiral into violence and disorder, fueled by fracturing Iranian security forces and potential civil unrest. As the conversation unfolds, careful consideration of these historical precedents appears essential to avoid repeating past mistakes.

Original Source: apnews.com