Immediate Thoughts on The US Attempt at Regime Change in Iran
I have been sick this entire Ramadan and yet I've fasted every day until today. I look forward to Ramadan every year, and especially to praying Taraweeh in the masjid, so I'm loathe to break my stride and take days off of fasting for medical reasons, even though it's completely valid from an Islamic legal perspective. Last night, as I enjoyed Yemeni tea and Dubai chocolate with my wife and a friend, I began feeling incredibly weak and sweating. I decided that enough is enough and I will start taking meds and hydrating until this sickness passes. Given my history with lung issues I don't want to see things escalate. So, while I was awake in the middle of the night and couldn't sleep due to a combination of coughing, sneezing, chest congestion, and nausea, Israel and the US struck Iran. Here are some of my thoughts.
Iran- The Bad Actor
No one should be surprised that Iran is incredibly unpopular in the Middle East and not loved by neighbors. From the beginning of the so-called Islamic Revolution elements of the Iranian government have sought to remove regional governments and export the revolution. This often meant supporting sectarian Shia militias. Or, in the case of Iraq, where the US handed Baghdad to Iran on a silver platter decorated with American blood, state support for Shia political parties.
Key players in the region all have unique reasons to fear a nuclear Iran or one that can exercise power in the region. Since the beginning of the Islamic Revolution Iranians have accused the US of being “The Great Satan” and have often acted upon that belief. Most famously bombing the US Marine barracks in Beirut in 1983. Israel fears Iran because the regime has stated their goal is the elimination of Israel and has been the chief state supporter of Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis in Yemen. Saudi Arabia fears Iran because they have made rival religious claims on Makkah and Madinah, have supported attacks on Saudi territory launched by Houthis in Yemen, and stirred unrest in the Shia majority areas of the Kingdom. Human rights defenders, of which relatively few are consistent or sincere, hate the Iranian regime due to the abysmal human rights record.
So, why the Iranian regime is disliked isn't a mystery. What is a mystery is how an air campaign with the stated goal of regime change can be successful.
The Libyan and Afghan Lesson
In the 1980s the US lent help and resources to Afghan Mujahideen forces fighting the Soviet Communist invasion of their country. Contrary to what many may have learned from peabrain academics like Noam Chomsky it was the Afghan people who led the charge organically. They didn't wanna be invaded or occupied by Russia. Their resistance was coming with or without US support. It just so happened, that in a marriage of convenience, the US began heavily funding the Mujahideen under President Ronald Reagan in order to weaken a common foe. That part turned out to be wildly successful as eventually the Soviets were forced to retreat. The aftermath turned out to be a decades long disaster for Afghanistan (and eventually the US). Several groups engaged in a decades long civil war, the US invaded and occupied Afghanistan for twenty years, spent countless billions, achieved absolutely nothing, and the Taliban took over the moment we left.
The commonality between Iran and Afghanistan isn't just that they're neighbors. They're both nations where ethnic and religious groups can form militias and carve out territory in the event of a regime collapse thus creating the conditions for a prolonged civil war and the collapse of a functional state.
Libya is another recent example. In 2011 President Barrack Obama bombed Libya, which ultimately led to the removal of dictator Muammar Gaddafi, and then peaced out. Few Americans are paying attention, but the Libyan civil war is still going on. There are rival governments in the east and west of Libya and half the country is run by militias.
Iranian Diaspora and A Million American Boots On the Ground
You cannot remove a regime from the air. In order to achieve that objective you need armed forces on the ground. This means there has to be a domestic a domestic military force in Iran ready to confront the regime and fill a power vacuum, a section of the Iranian armed forces turn on the Ayatollahs, a trained military force in the diaspora ready to commit boots on the ground and fight and die in large numbers, or the US willing to lead a million-man army of occupation. None of those things exist.
Like their Afghan neighbors, the Iranian opposition appears to want to receive US aid and funding, let our troops fight and die, and then cash in Ahmed Chalaby style. Of course, we know how this turns out. A weak state with no real control of the nation outside of Tehran (if that), and a lot of stealing of US taxpayer dollars. Anyone who seriously believes that the majority of Iranians are yearning for the return of the Pahlavi dynasty, or that someone can be flown into Tehran and take control of the nation like Aragorn returning to Gondor is either deliberately lying or incredibly dimwitted.
Donald Trump: Does He Have The Patience and Intellect For a Thoughtful and Strategic Campaign?
Just a few days ago President Donald Trump delivered a State of the Union address that lasted nearly two hours. He barely mentioned Iran. He had the opportunity to make his case to the American people and chose not to do so. Why? Trump knows that after the disasters in Iraq and Afghanistan regime change wars are incredibly unpopular with the American people. In fact, Trump, when running for President, promised he wouldn't engage in such regime change wars and his opposition to the war in Iraq.
Now that Trump has launched this regime change war without making his case either to Congress or the American people we need to know the answer to these questions. Is Trump thoughtful and strategic? Will he listen to military leadership? Will he commit to a long-term plan? Or does Trump have the temperament to just wake up one day and decide he wants to nuke Tehran? Or just decide to quit mid war because he's either bored or promised a resort property development in Iran? Republicans are already promising a short war. We've heard that before. This war cannot be simultaneously short and achieve the objectives Trump has stated.
Whitmer and AOC in Munich: Lord Help Us
Since 2016 Democrats have appeared to stand for very little other than being opposed to anything Trump does (even traditionally Democratic ideas) . This Democratic emptiness was on full display at the recent Munich Security Conference. Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer, who hopes to be the Commander in Chief of the most powerful military in human history and the world largest economy, admitted that she doesn't know a lot about foreign policy. AOC didn't admit she doesn't know a lot about foreign policy (and history), but every time she opened her mouth she made it abundantly clear she knows as much about foreign policy and history as Trump knows about committing to a balanced and healthy diet..
Domestic Politics: Americans Only Care About Dead Americans
Obama learned the lesson that President Richard Nixon did decades prior. When it comes to military engagement- Americans care about dead Americans. That's what moves the political needle. The massive death and bloodshed of the Vietnamese people and Obama going to town on multiple Muslim countries with drones didn't really move the needle on domestic US politics. Dead Americans in Vietnam and Iraq did. The American people simply don't have the stomach for it. If this conflict doesn't lead to a significant number of American deaths then Trump and Republicans will be OK politically. The Epstein Files will continue to be a greater domestic concern and Americans will pay more attention to the whereabouts of Savannah Guthrie's mother and Cardi B and Nikki Minaj fighting on social media.
If this conflict does lead to a significant amount of American deaths then Republicans are cooked in the mid terms and perhaps for even longer.
MAGA and Progressive Takes
The ascendant forces in the Republican and Democratic parties both stand in opposition to war with Iran and regime changes in general. The grassroots MAGA movement is “America First”, Nationalist, skeptical of all foreign conflicts, ready to lead an American divorce with Israel, and uninterested in war with Iran. The hawkish and neo-con segment of the GOP is largely made up of older voters, the donor class, dispensationalist Evangelicals and some demographically small segments.
The liberal interventionist Hillary Clinton and Samantha Powers wing of the Democratic Party is also increasingly out of fashion. The youthful and progressive base is stridently anti-war (and like their MAGA populist cousins even have affinity for international bad actors at times).
How this war plays out will have a major impact on both the mid terms of 2026 and the presidential election of 2028. If this war goes poorly look for a MAGA candidate (perhaps multiple) running against the war. Perhaps that candidate could even be J.D. Vance. On the Democratic side it could mirror 2008. The question will be how actively did you oppose the war?