I’m not talking about sanctions to deter development of nuclear weapons, I’m talking about regime change. Should that be an actual U.S. foreign-policy goal?
Certainly the Iranian government is heavy and authoritarian. The elections, which used to be something close to free and fair allowing for the pre-screening of candidates by the Guardian Council, no longer are. The Revolutionary Guard Corps is turning into a military kleptocracy within the state, and there’s never anything good to be said for those, nor for theocracies of any kind.
But how can we be sure what came after wouldn’t be a whole lot worse? One of the lessons we should have learned from Iraq (or, for that matter, from Yugoslavia) is that sometimes a brutal dictatorship is better for a country than any likely alternative. Iran is just as volatile as Iraq, and five times as big. The regime has a lot of opponents, but also a lot of very zealous supporters. There are large ethnically-non-Persian territories (see here), and some of them are restive under Persian rule and have active secessionist movements (see here) – some of which, such as the Balochis and the Kurds, would inflame secessionist movements in neighboring countries if they had any chance of success. Isn’t there a grave danger that any destablization would lead to a bloody civil war? And, worse, that it would spill over Iran’s borders and escalate into a general regional war? And that all this would, of course, interrupt Iran’s oil exports and destabilize the global petroleum market? I think the most prudent policy here is to leave bad enough alone.
No…we certainly should not be trying to actively destabilize Iran. Good grief. They are doing a good enough job on their own, and any radical (or even not radical) change has to come from inside and be completely untainted by even the slightest wiff of US involvement. We’ll probably get blamed regardless, of course, but that’s beside the point IMHO.
Considering that we have something of a reverse Midas Touch, I agree. After all, foreign interference is a large reason the present regime got into power in the first place. If we do try and succeed, judging from history I expect the result will be the standard; a lot of bloodshed, yet more people with a justified burning hatred of the West in general and America in particular, and another few decades of future US governments trying to deal with the results.
I think, on a national level, we should support the will of the people of Iran.
On a personal level, do what you think is right. I am.
That being said, I see no problem with the Feds making trouble for the Iranian government. Locking down Revolutionary Guard General’s bank accounts, and so on. Don’t interfere inside Iran, but if they can cut 'em off outside, where it hurts, I’m pleased as punch with it.
And I’m failing to see any existing movements inside Iran that would be worse for them and for the world than what they currently have.
I think it depends on what sort of activities are included. There is nothing wrong with criticizing the current government of Iran, and/or taking diplomatic steps to encourage policies more in line with our interests. I wouldn’t support any sort of direct intervention over there, nor would I support covert efforts to stir up protests or otherwise interfere in their internal affairs.
Well, if Iran sent people inside the United States to initiate a regime change, we might well define that as an act of war. If we do the same, how is that not yet another undeclared war, illegal by our own constitutional laws?
If we keep fighting undeclared wars, eventually war will become the province of the intelligence community, and congressional advice might well be entirely limited to costs. Of course corporate sponsorship could ameliorate that annoyance.
Yes, of course it should. The question is how. Unlike Yugoslavia and Iraq, Iran is not an artificial country, so there are no weaknesses to exploit there - on either side. But we should encourage regime change by peaceful means, or at least internal means. Trade, culture, encouraging free speech. Soft methods. The use of force should only be in question if Iran proves truly obnoxious.
If you destablize a country you have to make sure there is someone IN the country with enough power to assume control. I don’t believe any one group in Iran is powerful enough to make this claim.
Furthermore if you go to all the trouble of regime change you want to make sure the new regime will be different and not worse, or merely a repeat of what is already there.
For example, on a scale of 1 to 10 if ten is the worst and you distablize a country and all your gonna get is other regimes that would rank 9 or 8, why bother?
It’s kind of the devil you know verus the devil you don’t know.
The question is not whether such movements would be worse if they became the government, but what likely would ensue if the current government were knocked out of power. Probably not a smooth transition to secular democracy.
As for the OP, I agree that we should stay out of active efforts at regime change. Too many imponderables and too much vulnerability to things backfiring.
She’s not encouraging Obama to invade Iran. She’s pointing out that invading Iran would probably get him re-elected.
She’s probably right, assuming he can come up with a ridiculous pretext that’s just scary enough to fool 51% of the voters. Weapons of mass distraction.
That’s almost just as bad. Assuming she wants to be re-elected, she’s probably invade a country any time her poll numbers drop. And the worst thing about that is the blatant acknowledgement that it’s done for political reasons!