Iran: Containment, not Conquest
Andrew Raff
May 30, 2003
Now that Iraq is all cleaned up, Rumsfeld and the neo-cons1 are looking one line up in the atlas at Iran. Rumsfeld pushes for regime change in Iran. Using military force to bring about regime change in Iran would constitute a major mistake. Although the Islamic republic is one of the worst regimes around, if left alone, Iran will likely become a modern democracy before long. Forcing regime change will probably lead to a bigger mess in the short term and a longer transition period towards a stable, functional, and democratic Iran.
Although they are neighbors, Iran and Iraq are very different. Iraq was led by a secular dictator who ruled through terror. Without democratic institutions and little integration into the world economy, because of the UN sanctions, Iraq had no viable opposition to Saddam. In Iran, although the Ayatollahs continue to rule as a totalitarian theocracy, a set of weak democratic institutions exist. Through these institutions, President Khatami emerged as a leader of the democratic faction.
Although Iran includes emerging democratic elements, it effectively remains under the control of the Ayatollahs. The balance of power is still tilted significantly towards the theocrats. Iran is still ruled by a small group of aging clerics who support international Islamic terrorism and follow an official foreign policy committed to the destruction of Israel.
More than half of Iran's population is younger than 25. By and large, this generation, who all grew up after Iran's Islamic revolution, oppose the ruling mullahs and want their country to become more western, more democratic. These are students frustrated by a lack of economic opportunity, feel that their government does not speak for them and are eyeing futures overseas.
Unlike Iraq, Iran has a majority of the population who have worked to make their country more democratic and less fundamentalist. Although the Iranian hard-liners reject reform, forcing regime change too early will not bring about the level of reform that a pending revolution will bring. A democratic government that represents popular opinion will be more successful when elected rather than imposed by the American military. As much as Iranian students like America now, as soon as bombs start dropping on Tehran, expect those attitudes to change dramatically.
The fall of communism in 1989 in Eastern Europe succeeded as a series of revolutions led from within the country, not imposed by an occupying army. (The parallel does not hold up completely, because although the communist governments were native, Soviet soldiers and money supported the system. Iran's Islamic Republic is a local government, not maintained by outsiders.)
Regime change in Iran will happen. The inevitable internal reform (or revolution) will be more stable than any regime change imposed by America using military force. Continuing containment will lead to those results without the need to resort to military force.
1Picture Rumsfeld as the lead singer and Wolfowitz, Cheney, et. al. as the backup singers of a group ala Smokey Robinson and the Miracles.
Further reading:
BBCi: Iran: the Struggle for Change (2000)
