Free Minds & Free Markets

Regime Change in Iran Is Neither Necessary Nor Prudent

Despite threat inflation by Iran hawks, the country has limited capabilities.

There's mischief afoot in the White House, and it's the familiar mischief of regime change. Some in President Trump's advisory circle are reportedly pushing for an official embrace of regime change as the United States' policy toward Iran.

Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) is at the forefront of this ill-advised endeavor. "I don't see how anyone can say America can be safe," he told Politico, "as long as you have in power a theocratic despotism" in Iran.

Well, senator, let me explain.

First, let's agree the government of Iran is an unsavory regime. Tehran has a well-documented record of human rights abuses, so Cotton's "theocratic despotism" label is not unfair. Iran also has a reputation for sponsoring terrorism and backing Syria's genocidal government.

To be sure, the recent re-election of President Hassan Rouhani, who campaigned on a message of moderation and liberalization, is a step in the right direction. Rouhani's hardline opponent was considered the favorite of Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, and his voters hailed the win as a victory for peace and positive international diplomacy. More importantly, younger Iranians are increasingly secular and pro-Western. They are challenging their government's strict social controls and have a positive view of America. As these generations mature and Khamenei's cohort dies off, political evolution (if not revolution) is likely.

Still, it would be naïve to deny that the potentially free and open Iran of the future is not yet here. But it would be even more naïve—and dangerous, too—to make the leap from this basis to Cotton's support of U.S.-orchestrated regime change.

The weight of pragmatic considerations here is enormous. Consider what happened in Iraq, the United States' biggest post-9/11 regime change project. What was sold as a necessary and relatively easy war has dragged on these 14 years. Iraq today is less stable than it was before American military intervention; it has become a breeding ground of terrorism, a festering sore oozing the poison of radicalism across the greater Mideast. We have little to show for more than a decade of nation-building efforts spread across three presidencies. With trillions spent and tens of thousands of American and Iraqi lives lost, no one can credibly say regime change in Iraq was a decision worth repeating.

Apply the same approach to Iran, and the results will be more disastrous. Iran has more than double Iraq's population, and Iranians are better educated and more urbanized. Iran is more than triple Iraq's geographic size, and its economy and technological development are both superior to its neighbor to the east. Add to that the United States' history of meddling in Iran's internal affairs—recent history that is not forgotten and will keep Iranian moderates and reformers from being sympathetic to American goals— and the probability of a successful regime change imposed by Washington is exactly nil.

The good news is there is no credible case such an effort is needed. Contra the threat inflation from Iran hawks, the country is fundamentally a regional power with bounded influence.

It is a majority-Shiite state surrounded by Sunni enemies, most notably the well-armed and U.S.-supported Saudi Arabia. It is halfway across the globe from our shores, isolated from us by the world's largest natural moats, and would be laughably outmatched by the U.S. in conventional warfare. Moreover, American intelligence agencies have consistently and unanimously said since 2007 that Tehran is not engaged in a nuclear weapons program. And though hardly an American ally in the war on terror, Iran does join Washington in actively opposing the Islamic State, the chief terrorism threat we face today.

This assessment of Iran's limited capabilities—not to mention the gross expense, risk, and instability regime change would unquestionably produce—is why foreign policy realists argue America can be safe without launching another long, bloody war of choice.

Again, none of this is to say the Iranian regime is a paradigm of freedom and respect for human rights. It is uncontroversial to say it is not. But you don't have to love the government in Tehran to recognize that pursuing a policy of regime change is neither necessary nor prudent.

Photo Credit: A. Davey/flickr

Bonnie Kristian is a fellow at Defense Priorities. She is a contributing writer at The Week and a columnist at Rare, and her writing has also appeared at Relevant Magazine and The American Conservative, among other outlets.

Media Contact Reprint Requests

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    Consider what happened in Iraq...

    Oh, here we go. Throw that in our faces. How about we go back to the old, tried and true scheme of having the CIA install a puppet? Or is the deep state still too busy trying to install a puppet to head our own government?

  • BestUsedCarSales||

    Machine Learning models have improved a lot. No way we'd have a repeat of Iraq. Plus, our intentions are good. Nothing can beat that.

  • Scarecrow Repair & Chippering||

    It is halfway across the globe from our shores, isolated from us by the world's largest natural moats

    But Meheecanos! Them illegal Mexshicanite coyotes will smuggle them across the border and DESTROY us!

    Why do you hate the children?

    Speaking of which, is today garbage pickup day? I need to go find an under-utilized can to gainfully employ with my own meager contribution.

  • AD-RtR/OS!||

    In the Mid-30's, Germany had limited capabilities to enforce its will against Britain and France (who caved anyway when presented with the militarization of the SAAR), but that doesn't mean that the world would not have been better off with Regime Change in Berlin when Herr Hitler first flexed his under-developed muscles.

  • ||

    Have you ever seen this movie?

  • mtrueman||

    "It is a majority-Shiite state surrounded by Sunni enemies, "

    Had Bonnie been a proper academic instead of a fellow at an institute, she would have known the above is not true. Take Qatar, for example. It's mostly Sunni, but hardly an enemy. Iran and Qatar share what apparently is the world's largest gas field, and they've been talking about working it together. The US, Saudi Arabia and Israel disagree. Don't be taken in by the good regime/bad regime, Sunni/Shia narrative. It's about money and resources.

  • Sanjuro Tsubaki||

    They're an unsavory regime, but they have a lot of sages.

  • Social Justice is neither||

    Maybe the author doesn't realize that regime change is not the same as invasion. US policy towards Iraq was regime change for years prior to the military misadventures that got started with the unraveling of the UN cease-fire and sanctions alongside the air traffic incident of 9/11.

    Regime change could be financial sanctions, political support for more pro-west forces or other non-military pressure to oust the current theocracy. It's possible they're talking straight military conflict but there's nothing to support that here beyond "but Iraq".


Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online