Ignore the Hawks. Attacking Iran Comes With Huge Risks
President Donald Trump appears tempted to use military force against Iran, perhaps even to push for regime change. The temptation is understandable—but must be resisted. Trying to topple the Ayatollah would be bad politics and worse policy, endangering American lives and making the Middle East less secure for decades to come.
Hawks in Washington have been advocating for regime change in Tehran for decades. No president has yet been willing to adopt their most extreme ideas. Today, however, key variables seem to be aligning in the hawks’ favor, leading some to speculate that Trump could be convinced to deliver a death blow to the regime.
According to the hawks, Iran is a sitting duck. Most obviously, the regime is under serious—perhaps fatal—pressure at home. Iran’s economy is in freefall. The most recent protests showed that ordinary Iranians are fed up with the mismanagement of their country, while previous protests revealed popular revulsion at the regime’s hardline social policies.
In the past, it was possible to sympathize with anti-regime protesters while lamenting the lack of a viable alternative. But today, the hawks point to the exiled crown prince, Reza Pahlavi, as someone who could unify the opposition and lead a transitional government. There are also armed groups in some Kurdish (western) and Baluch (eastern) provinces that could conceivably take and hold territory from the central government.
Back in 2019, Trump considered bombing Iran in response to the downing of a U.S. drone over the Persian Gulf. He called off those airstrikes because he was persuaded that a war with Iran would result in too much blood being shed.
Since then, Trump has ordered the assassination of the Iranian general Qasem Soleimani, and even authorized a direct attack on Iran, striking Tehran’s nuclear facilities last year. Each time, Iran made largely symbolic attempts to retaliate. No American lives were lost.
Now, Iran is even more vulnerable to airstrikes, given the significant damage done to the country’s air defenses by Israel and the United States last June. What is more, its most powerful regional proxies—Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Assad regime in Syria—have been destroyed or badly degraded.
According to the hawks, this constellation of domestic and military factors has opened a window of opportunity to pursue regime change.
What could go wrong?
Needless to say, the hawks are giving Trump only half of the story. There are still huge risks that come with attacking Iran.
The key point is this: Any attack on Iran now will likely be interpreted in Tehran as the beginning stages of a regime change operation. From the Iranian perspective, there could be no other explanation for a U.S. attack, given that the country’s nuclear program has already been placed offline for the foreseeable future.
Backed into a corner and with nothing to lose, the regime can be expected to fight back with everything it has. And while Iran might be weaker than it was a few years ago, it still has the military capacity to inflict severe damage upon U.S. military personnel across the Persian Gulf region.
The United States has around 1,000 troops in Syria, 2,500 in Iraq, 13,000 in Kuwait, and another 15,000 or so in Bahrain and Qatar. It would be impossible for the Pentagon to protect all these forces from Iranian missiles, rockets, and drones if the regime unleashes its entire arsenal. The problem of defense would be even worse if the Houthis and Iran-backed militias in Iraq were to join the fray.
Even Israel, with its vaunted Iron Dome defense system, suffered direct hits during last year’s 12-Day War, including on military bases. Most observers agree that Iran held back its most advanced missiles during the conflict with Israel. The damage could have been even worse if Iran had viewed the war as a fight for survival.
The bottom line is that, if Trump launches additional strikes on Iran, the lives of American troops would be at risk. This would be bad enough if there was a guarantee that a war of regime change would succeed.
But, of course, there can be no guarantees. On the contrary, the evidence is overwhelming that airstrikes usually fail to bring about regime change. And even if the Iranian government were to collapse due to a combination of international and domestic crises, it is always possible that an even worse regime will take its place.
One needs to look no further than Libya for a cautionary tale. Toppling the corrupt and hated regime of Moammar Gaddafi was one thing. Bringing peace and security to ordinary Libyans, however, has been quite another.
For context, Libya is a country of around 7.5 million people. Iran has a population of around 93 million. There is no telling what state collapse or a civil war in Iran could do to the Middle East. This is why even Iran’s regional rivals are wary of foreign-imposed regime change.
The Iranian regime is weak and getting weaker. If left to deteriorate, it could collapse under its own weight or be pushed aside by a popular uprising. The worst-case scenario is that it muddles through and emerges from the present crises more vulnerable than ever to coercion by the United States.
Choosing war with Iran now would be a grave mistake. Those closest to Trump should remind him that he has options to select from—and that those options will only get better with the passage of time, not worse.
The post Ignore the Hawks. Attacking Iran Comes With Huge Risks appeared first on The American Conservative.