President Donald Trump appears again to be considering military action against Iran. An eruption of antigovernment protests and the subsequent brutal crackdown raised real questions about the regime’s durability, and some have proposed giving the thing a kick to see whether it falls over. There has been a flurry of military personnel movement in the Gulf region in anticipation of this, which suggests the president is considering the use of force seriously.
But his own enthusiasm seems variable. He initially exhorted protestors to keep up the demonstrations and declared that “HELP IS ON THE WAY”; he also said that the U.S. would respond forcefully if the regime started shooting protestors. But in a Tuesday interview with CBS News, Trump’s redline had become hangings, and he sounded significantly less gung-ho for getting in there and mixing it up with the ayatollahs; in an Oval Office presser Wednesday, he asserted that the regime was no longer killing people and had no plans for executions. He has pointedly declined to endorse Reza Pahlavi, the son of the deposed shah, as the replacement for the Islamic Republic. (It seems doubtful that Trump is even aware of the other exile government on offer, the strange and off-putting MEK.) At the same time, it looks as if the protests are receding in the face of government suppression.
What about an internal shakeup? Iran-watchers say that the regular army taking over from clerical leadership and the IRGC is the most likely change of management in Tehran. From the limited information available outside Iran, it does not appear as if the army is distancing itself from the rest of the regime at this time; even were it to move on the rest of the state, it is difficult to imagine this occurring without much chaos. The IRGC in particular has a stranglehold on Iran’s economic structures, giving it a disproportionate advantage in the case of any sort of factional fighting. Hateful as the Islamic Republic may be, an Iran embroiled in chaos does not make the region or the world safer.
So what exactly would the point of striking Iran be at this juncture? A show of force is all very well, but trying to knock over the government and failing is bad; succeeding in knocking over a government with no viable replacement is worse. A purely punitive attack does not tell the Iranian regime anything it doesn’t know about the might of American arms or the United States’ orientation toward the Islamic Republic—but it will give the regime a handy piece of propaganda for rallying support and engaging in further repression. It is difficult to see how such an action would encourage anything but chaos or further repression. And then what? Will that demand further involvement? What if the regime feels compelled to retaliate? Is this sort of display, which is unlikely to have much consequential practical effect, worth risking American lives and further entanglement in a region we’re supposedly trying to deemphasize?
If the protests have crested and there’s no concrete payoff in the cards, or even a plan for what to do if there were a concrete payoff, Iran strikes seem like a waste of time and resources. The administration clearly enjoys a show of overwhelming military prowess on occasion—the June Iran strikes, the recent extraction operation on Venezuela’s Nicolas Maduro. So be it; it’s not actually a peace administration. But Trump and co. have at least shown a laudable allergy to extended operations. They should think about whether there’s anything actually to be gained with a new attack, and whether the concomitant risks are acceptable.
Read the full article here
