A number of Republican senators and conservative pundits want regime change in Iran. “I think it is very much in the interest of America to see regime change,” Sen. Ted Cruz told Fox News on Sunday. “I don’t think there’s any redeeming the ayatollah.” Most pushing for regime change know they can’t go full neocon to sell the idea. The public is repelled by anything resembling the warmongering against Saddam Hussein, particularly talk about nation building.
So advocates for regime change in Iran have settled on a new formula: regime change, but without the nation building. Supposedly, this is completely different from what we’ve done before, but that’s unlikely to be the case. In fact, we already tried this strategy out in Libya 14 years ago. It did not make the world a better place. Instead, it resulted in a failed state in the Mediterranean that has allowed millions of Africans to pour into Europe.
The Libyan disaster shows what the West gets out of regime change: more migrants flooding into our countries. It’s a factor no one beating the war drum considers. It’s assumed that the new Iranian government will mean peace and harmony throughout the region. Recent history paints a very different picture.
Israel would be the only clear beneficiary from regime change in Iran. The primary funder and arms supplier of their enemies would disappear. Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis would be greatly weakened without Iran, if not completely finished. Israel would no longer have a state enemy to worry about. Assad is gone from Syria and Israel has normalized relations with many of its neighbors. Chaos in Iran would be no issue for the Israelis, as a migrant crisis wouldn’t affect them. It may even prove beneficial to their interests. More fighting-age Muslims heading elsewhere means fewer potential enemy soldiers. The civil war in Syria destabilized and depopulated one of Israel’s chief enemies. The same thing happening to Iran would be a dream come true for Israel.
But it’s not clear how the West will benefit. The Islamic Republic is no friend to the U.S. and has committed many outrages against America and our allies. But it’s often better to stick with the devil you know rather than the one you don’t. Those pushing for regime change seem to think the mullahs will be replaced by America-loving liberal democrats who will thank Israel for bombing their land. All the Islamists will magically disappear and Tehran will finally welcome a Chappell Roan concert.
Not a single regime change has turned out this way. Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, and Libya are far from model democracies. They all experienced violent civil wars that killed tens of thousands and created unstable governments. There’s a high likelihood the same would happen in Iran. Like these other countries, it’s not homogeneous and holds the seeds for ethnic conflict. Persians are only a bare majority of the population. Kurds and Azeris may fight for independence rather than stay in a decapitated Iran. That would further destabilize the region, as it would obviously cause conflict with neighboring states. The Islamists will still be around and fighting for their cause. It’s unclear what serious alternative to the mullahs exists, especially one that could keep the country together. A power vacuum is far more likely to lead to violence than to a harmonious resolution in favor of liberal democracy. Just look at what happened to post-Saddam Iraq.
If violence breaks out, prepare for another migrant wave. Over two million Iraqis left their homeland after America “liberated” it. Over six million Syrians fled their country during their civil war. The fall of Muammar Gaddafi in Libya made the North African country a gateway for millions of African migrants to go to Europe. Hundreds of thousands of Afghans left their nation in the wake of failed nation building.
It’s extremely likely there will be another migrant crisis if the mullahs fall. This could even be the biggest one of all if it results in a regional war involving multiple state actors. Iran is more populous than the previous states that experienced regime change, meaning more potential migrants. The instability could also revive the fortunes of ISIS and other Sunni extremists. Another Middle Eastern country falling to chaos and anarchy would serve as the perfect launch pad for another caliphate, just like it did in Syria.
The migration waves caused by civil war in Libya and Syria forever changed Europe. The whole matter of boat crossings became a grave concern after America helped topple Gaddafi. The Libyan strongman had made deals with European leaders to keep a lid on migrant sea crossings. With him out of the picture, there was no longer anyone around to block the waves of African migrants. In 2011, there were around 28,500 migrants crossing the Mediterranean Sea to Italy. By 2016, that number had shot up to 163,000.
The Syrian migration wave made this problem even worse. Then-German chancellor Angela Merkel famously welcomed hundreds of thousands of Syrians in 2015, with other European states following her lead. Hailed as the dawn of a new, more wonderful Europe, the Syrian migrants proved more of a curse than a blessing. Many Europeans now see these migrants as having brought only crime, cultural change, and welfare dependence. Immigration is now a central issue for Europeans and has roiled continental politics.
America backed regime change in Syria by funding rebel groups. ISIS and Europe’s migrant woes were the sole returns on this investment.
Taking in migrants is a choice, of course. But Europe struggles mightily to control its borders already. Governments that try to enforce basic immigration law often find their actions blocked by courts and the European Union. Some leaders, such as Italian interior minister Matteo Salvini, have faced criminal charges for trying to block migrant boats. Greece may face sanctions over its efforts to keep migrants out of Europe. European nations even struggle to deport convicted child rapists and murderers. Keeping out migrants is easier said than done. Another migrant wave on the scale of what Europe witnessed in 2015 would push the continent to the breaking point.
America could manage this situation better thanks to being across an ocean and being more effective at enforcing immigration law. But this would still cause problems for us and create demands for us to solve this problem. The Syrian migrant crisis also affected the U.S.
It’s foolish to think we can break something as big and complicated as Iran and expect it will fix itself. Every single recent example proves otherwise. Those demanding regime change have learned nothing from our mistakes.
It would be much wiser to negotiate a deal with the current Iranian government and promote peace in the region. If we want to get a handle on mass migration, the last thing we need to do is to create another chaotic failed state in the region that pushes Middle Easterners our way.
Read the full article here
