At rare moments in history, the collapse of a single regime holds the potential to alter the trajectory of entire regions, even civilizations. Iran today stands on such a precipice. Its leadership, once the iron spine of revolutionary theocracy, appears fractured, fearful, and increasingly illegitimate in the eyes of its own people. The signs evoke the twilight of other ossified orders: the flight plans of Iran’s elite recall the panicked exits of Nazi officials in 1945 and Soviet hardliners in 1991. When citizens openly cheer foreign strikes on their own security apparatus and intelligence chiefs seek safe passage abroad, the illusion of unity collapses. Like the court of Louis XVI whispering of reform too late, Iran’s ruling class may find itself outpaced by events it can no longer control.
But the fall of a regime is not the same as the rise of a better one. History brims with examples where revolutionary fervor gave way to blood and ashes—France in 1793, Russia in 1917, Libya in 2011. The challenge is not merely to break the old order but to replace it swiftly, before vacuum becomes vortex. Iran’s fate now hinges on whether internal actors, possibly long aligned in secret against the regime, have the foresight and means to avoid descent into sectarianism, nuclear insecurity, or foreign partition. If they do, the consequences could rival the fall of the Berlin Wall: the ideological engine of militant political Islam might sputter to a halt, proxies would lose their patron, and authoritarian contagion could begin to reverse. It would not be peace overnight; but it could be the first morning light after a long and violent dusk.
The Syrian government did not collapse even after a decade of civil war. My model of Israel's war aims in Iran, is that they want to do as much damage to Iran's military potential as possible. Regime change would be welcome, but they'll settle for a weaker Iran. One might think of Iraq in the 1990s - Saddam in power but forced to tolerate UN weapons inspectors - except that the Security Council is now divided. Russia and China will do everything they can to preserve a dual-use nuclear program in Iran, because it keeps America at a distance.
Iran is now in the same situation as Gaza. Iran is taking potshots at Israeli national infrastructure, and Gazans are still trying to kill Israeli soldiers, but in both cases, the main aim of the leadership is simply to outlast the Israeli military onslaught. If they can do that, they will declare victory in this battle, since they will be back in an era in which Israeli liberals, European diplomats, Qatari money, and a host of other non-military forces matter.
I find some clues in Iran's modern political history. In the 19th century, Iran was ruled by the Turkic Qajar dynasty. They tried to be neutral in World War I, but Russia imposed itself and after the war, a new dynasty was declared, the Pahlavi dynasty. The founder lasted until World War II, during which Russia and Britain divided the country to keep Germany out of the oil fields. Again a European world war provoked a political crisis, the founder abdicated in favor of his son, and the son allied himself with America, ruling Iran until the Islamists took over in 1979.
Islamist Iran has made it through politico-military crisis before. The final stages of the 1980s war with Iraq saw Iraqi missiles reaching Tehran. Abandoning the goal of regime change in Iraq and Israel, in favor of a ceasefire, was a huge threat to the system, but they dealt with it by executing all the leftist prisoners (who were the main political alternative in the country), placing Khomeini's natural heir Montazeri under house arrest when he objected, and installing the less qualified loyalist Khamenei as supreme leader when Khomeini died. If Khamenei and the system can survive this war too, they'll call it a victory and install someone younger as supreme leader - that's my scenario.
Claire – great analysis, as always. I think your crystal ball, though, is a bit clouded by undue (IMO) optimism and a strong case of TDS. Let’s take it number by number.
1. Israel could succeed in toppling the regime. Totally agree. Reza Pahlavi has been making pronouncements right and left, also.
2. There may be a plan for the day after. Yes. The Syrian example gives me real hope. Iran’s future doesn’t have to be – probably cannot be, given the region and the people – representative democracy; a less totalitarian, less theocratic regime is certainly possible.
3. The collapse of that vile regime would be the best thing to happen in this century. I totally agree with all the text in this section; the headline is beginning to veer into the “undue optimism” category. It would certainly be the best thing for Israel and for the wretched people of Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, and many other countries in the region. The world is much bigger, though, and has bigger fish to fry. Certainly a step in the right direction, though.
5. But it wouldn’t just be astonishingly good news for Iran. The end of political Islam? I don’t think so. Just like with Communism, the appeal of radical, political Islam will never die. I have a saying: Mordor is always there. It may be quiescent for a while, but it is never defeated, and it never goes away. “the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?" - Solzhenitsyn
6. Just as authoritarianism tends to be contagious, so is liberalization. Again, I agree with the text – the fall of an evil regime will inspire democracy movements, and the absence of Iranian drones will benefit Ukraine. I am not sure it will “galvanize” anything, though. It will remove (hopefully) active support for many terrorist organizations and religious movements, which may allow the suppressed populace to demand freedom, or at least a voice; but again, given the history and the dynamics of the region, I don’t see democracy flourishing everywhere; or even anywhere.
7. They could even take Putin down with them. Now we are getting into the “undue euphoria” category. Putin has the support of the vast majority of Russians. In a recent Levada Center poll about the most outstanding people in history according to Russians, Stalin was first with 42% and Putin was second with 31% (Lenin was third with 28%). That tells you everything you need to know. Putin will not be gone until he (a) dies or (b) is removed via a coup. Neither is very likely in the short term. (A humiliating military defeat, even a series of them over a protracted period of time, will not do it – look at 1940-43 Stalin).
8. It’s a better world already. Yes, I agree that removing the possibility of a nuclear Iran is crucial, and nuclear proliferation in the region is certain if that is not done.
9. Yes, they might now race for the Bomb. I think it’s clear that Israel will not let it happen. Iran is totally disarmed at this point. Israel is pounding it where it wants, how it wants, for as long as it wants. Even if Fordow survives, there is nobody left to rebuild the capabilities to construct and deliver a nuclear device. Plus, whatever emerges from the rubble, Mossad will have even better intelligence and capabilities for operating within Iran. I am sure thousands of Iranians have been reaching out to them with offers of help and cooperation. And yes, OF COURSE, we (the US) must strike Fordow to make it an utter impossibility instead of an unlikely probability.
10. My God, the antisemites are idiots. Yes, many folks are ideologically captured or have given in to irrational hatred, but I think you have a very, very blinkered idea of what MAGA is and what Trump supporters believe. A GrayHouse poll conducted June 15-16, 2025, surveyed 450 Trump 2024 voters and found strong support for Israel’s actions against Iran. Key findings include: 83% backed Israel’s military strikes on Iran. 80% supported the U.S. providing offensive weapons to Israel for striking Iranian military targets. 86% favored supplying Israel with defensive weapons to protect against Iranian attacks. 91% agreed the U.S. should provide intelligence to Israel for defense purposes. 72% supported direct U.S. military action targeting Iran to prevent nuclear weapon development. 80% viewed Iran as a destabilizing force that sponsors terrorism, threatens U.S. allies, and undermines American interests. 72% considered Iran a serious threat to U.S. national security. 73% believed Iran cannot be trusted to honor diplomatic agreements and may develop nuclear weapons in secret. 85% supported Israel’s military actions in Gaza following the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack. Please do not extrapolate what you see in some X posts or what you read in the unpardonably biased NYT and its ilk to the American population at large. And for every Marjorie Taylor Greene, there is an Ilhan Omar and AOC.
Isn’t Iran also in a much stronger position wrt human capital than Iraq or Libya when it comes to forming a stable non-theocratic government if the regime is toppled? Did either of those countries actually have such a large pro-democracy movement or a younger generation educated and open to the modern world?
Trump’s actions seem to be based on the principle that Iran cannot be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon. Full stop.
He isn’t going to be distracted by Bannon and Carlson not just because Miriam Adelson gave him $100 million and not just because he has sort of Jewish grandchildren, but because he thinks that this is winnable and that a victory would set him up for a third term at least.
By the way, Claire, it’s “the pros” that you’re yearning for who brought the world to the miserable shape that we are all experiencing. It’s those same pros who allowed Iran to reach the cusp of developing nuclear weapons.
We have in essence done this by electing a chief executive who is erratic and typically, disdainful of advice from professionals. Unfortunately, there is no requirement that voters take the time to become reasonably well informed about the facts and understand something of the likely outcomes of their decisions.
These days everyone is a cynic and there is diminished confidence in people of education, experience and proven ability — not to mention, good character— so as a consequence we have felons, drunks and nitwits populating the corridors of power.
As I recall, what we are terming "the pros" include Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld and the interventionist NeoCons who egged on GW Bush to invade Iraq and finish off Saddam's awful regime (a good thing, imo) and led the country into decades of chaos (NOT a GT, imo).
With that record of confusion and incompetent leadership as context, outside observers have cause to believe that if the USA got involved in Israel's war against Iran, we would find a way to muck that up as well. Especially as we are now led by an erratic president surrounded by sycophants and morons, it would be best for America and for the world to let the people of the Middle East work out their differences.
Since we are talking about options for "best possible outcomes", if we really want to see a denuclearized Iran, would it not be better for a new, democratic Iranian government to voluntarily undertake, with international help and supervision, rather than bombing their nuclear facilities and spreading radioactive dust all around the atmosphere?
Yes you are right; the neoconservative pros were as dimwitted as the liberal internationalist pros. They might have been even worse. It’s the pros who got us into this mess in the first place.
We should ask to good Lord to save us from the pros.
That treaty was useless. It guaranteed Iran’s ability to acquire nuclear weapons over time. People of good will can disagree about this; I presume you disagree. Even if you do, the sanctions relief provided by the JCPOA (along with the pallets of cash that Obama delivered to Iran in 2016 to ransom four American hostages) were used by Iran to arm and provide financial support for Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis. It was used to empower anti-American zealots in the Shia community in Iraq. Iran massively destabilized Lebanon and almost single-handedly propped up the odious Alawite regime in Syria. It allowed Iran to develop a fearsome ballistic missile program and deadly drones that it provided to Russia to use against Ukraine. It also facilitated an alliance between Iran and American adversaries like Russia, China and North Korea. All of this was done while the “pros” sat around and did nothing. The “pros” that you and Claire wish were in charge belong in the minor leagues. As Claire herself acknowledges, the world seems to be falling apart around us. It’s all happened while the “pros” were calling the shots.
Whether it’s Republican neoconservatives or Democratic liberal internationalists, their record of failure is unprecedented. The last time Trump was President he assassinated the Quds Force Commander, Qasem Soleimani. How did the Democrats react? Exactly like they’re reacting now. Back in 2020 Majority Leader Schumer questioned why Soleimani needed to be “killed now.” Schumer worried that the killing was hasty and ill-considered” and expressed worry that the strike “might push the U.S. closer to another endless war in the Middle East.”
Then Speaker Pelosi called Soleimani’s killing a “provocative and disproportionate action that risked escalating tensions with Iran.” She went on to bemoan that the “Administration has conducted the strikes in Iraq targeting high-level Iranian military officials and killing Iranian Quds Force Commander Qasem Soleimani without an Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) from Congress against Iran.”
It’s hard to know how a President Harris might have performed in the current situation if she had been elected but it’s not hard to guess how her key foreign policy advisor, Phil Gordon would have reacted. He would be cozying up to Iran while excoriating Israel. “Gordon’s a pros “pro.”
The treaty was working just fine. Trump unilaterally cancelled it, then tried to make a new one many years later. He failed and now we are at major risk of being dragged into a war we didn’t need to fight.
What has gotten us here is Donald Trump and you blame everyone else.
There are many things that could go right if Israel is victorious. That doesn’t mean they will, but it’s certainly well within the world of the conceivable. Here’s a short list.
1) Iran isn’t a country, it’s a localized multiethnic empire ruled by Persians. An Israeli victory might inspire the Azeris is Northwestern Iran to achieve independence and federate or join Azerbaijan. This would be a very good outcome for them.
2) Similarly, the Balochs in southeastern Iran might revolt and achieve independence. This would be good for the Balochs and bad for a country almost as miserable as Iran which, of course, is Pakistan. Pakistan already has problems with its Balochs and a restive Baloch population in Pakistan would divert the Pakistani military’s attention away from its quarrels with India which would be an excellent outcome (Claire, maybe you could get some comments from Vivek about this possibility). Independence for the Iranian Balochs would also be bad for China which controls the Pakistani port which is quite close.
3)An Israeli victory in Iran would tilt Syria to the west even more than it currently is. The whole region might be stabilized which might encourage the millions of Syrian immigrants in Europe who are destabilizing the whole European continent to return home. This would be good for Europe and good for liberal democracy because much of Europe’s current passion for populism stems from the anger that Muslim immigrants in Europe inspires.
3) No more drones or Iranian assistance to Russia in its war with Ukraine.
4) Less oil for China (at least in the short run). The other side of the coin is that as oil prices go up, Russia benefits but so does Texas, Oklahoma and other oil producing regions of the United States.
5) No more weapons or cash for Hamas, Hezbollah or the Houthis. The whole region becomes more peaceful.
6) Less support for radical Palestinians partially empowers more reasonable Palestinians and tempers their expectations.
7) A defeat for Iran and its surrogates might finally quiet the “river to the sea” crowd on American college campuses and inspire them to demonstrate less and study harder until they grow up and start voting Republican as they reach their thirties and forties.
8) The death of the innocent marines and others murdered by Iran in 1983 will finally, at long last, be avenged.
9) No regional nuclear arms race.
10) A massive boon to the Israeli arms industry as the world marvels at the quality of its weapons. Plus a treasure trove of invaluable information for American arms suppliers as it gets to witness its armaments in action.
One small nit to pick. You said, "Iran isn’t a country, it’s a localized multiethnic empire ruled by Persians." I believe you mean that Iran is not a "nation." The terms Country, Nation, and State are often used very loosely as synonyms, but they have several definitions.
Here's an attempt to differentiate their meanings:
Country is the territorial entity comprising the State. The State is the formal structure that governs a country. The Nation is both of these, plus the People, unified by and self-identifying with the State.
"One Soil, One Blood, One People" sums up the idea of Nationhood. Of course such a national homogeneity is largely fictive, though there are a few exceptions (Mongolia and Japan come to mind).
I'm capitalizing terms because I get tired of typing in quotation marks, and Substack won't let me underline, italicize or print in boldface.
Substack may not allow text attributes, but you can still fake them 𝗹𝗶𝗸𝗲 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 or 𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑠. Just go to yaytext.com or any similar site. The only drawback is that some programs will not copy-paste the text afterwards — though others, like OpenOffice, will.
The point about Iran being “not a country” (regardless of terminological accuracy) is paramount. It is the same with Libya, Afghanistan, Syria and many others. Thinking of them as “countries” in the same sense we conceive of Brazil or Poland being countries immediately leads to distorted expectations. Nothing constructive can happen in Iran because there is no such polity as Iran the way we assume there is; this holds regardless of whether Iran (whatever that is) is bombed flat or permitted to keep going.
You are entirely correct. Adam Garfinkle is a stickler about this and wrote about it in a recent post on the “Strawberry Patch.” If you don’t subscribe, I highly recommend it.
I see this path here too, I’m just mortified of the other possibilities and not optimistic. This part gets me the most:
“This is no time for that crew of imbeciles, traitors, and fourth-string New York real estate guys. Get the pros in”
Zero chance of that happening. The pros are sidelined and the President barely gets the intel reports. With this situation as delicate as can be, we need the A-team and we’ve got the D-team.
I think the path to regime change in Iran is more fraught and difficult than most realize due to the history there. We had a compliant client there, the Shah, and think Iranians will be very skeptical of anyone working with Israel or the US as future leadership. But I’m no expert and there is obviously appetite among Iranians to liberalize too.
I’m worried Iran has a nuke or two completed under the radar they might use imminently.
I’m also worried how Russia/Putin influence over Trump may somehow kneecap us and advantage Iran. And I worry our interceptor missile stockpiles are draining down with the prospect of hot world war looking more likely every day.
I just hope these morons bumble their way into some lucky outcome.
I adore your optimism, Claire. Have been losing mine of late.
At rare moments in history, the collapse of a single regime holds the potential to alter the trajectory of entire regions, even civilizations. Iran today stands on such a precipice. Its leadership, once the iron spine of revolutionary theocracy, appears fractured, fearful, and increasingly illegitimate in the eyes of its own people. The signs evoke the twilight of other ossified orders: the flight plans of Iran’s elite recall the panicked exits of Nazi officials in 1945 and Soviet hardliners in 1991. When citizens openly cheer foreign strikes on their own security apparatus and intelligence chiefs seek safe passage abroad, the illusion of unity collapses. Like the court of Louis XVI whispering of reform too late, Iran’s ruling class may find itself outpaced by events it can no longer control.
But the fall of a regime is not the same as the rise of a better one. History brims with examples where revolutionary fervor gave way to blood and ashes—France in 1793, Russia in 1917, Libya in 2011. The challenge is not merely to break the old order but to replace it swiftly, before vacuum becomes vortex. Iran’s fate now hinges on whether internal actors, possibly long aligned in secret against the regime, have the foresight and means to avoid descent into sectarianism, nuclear insecurity, or foreign partition. If they do, the consequences could rival the fall of the Berlin Wall: the ideological engine of militant political Islam might sputter to a halt, proxies would lose their patron, and authoritarian contagion could begin to reverse. It would not be peace overnight; but it could be the first morning light after a long and violent dusk.
Claire,
Perhaps you could expand on this in a future post.
“ Trump and Trumpism can’t survive Putin’s collapse, by the way. If we see a global liberal revolution, Trump will be one of the first casualties.”
I don’t get it.
The Syrian government did not collapse even after a decade of civil war. My model of Israel's war aims in Iran, is that they want to do as much damage to Iran's military potential as possible. Regime change would be welcome, but they'll settle for a weaker Iran. One might think of Iraq in the 1990s - Saddam in power but forced to tolerate UN weapons inspectors - except that the Security Council is now divided. Russia and China will do everything they can to preserve a dual-use nuclear program in Iran, because it keeps America at a distance.
Iran is now in the same situation as Gaza. Iran is taking potshots at Israeli national infrastructure, and Gazans are still trying to kill Israeli soldiers, but in both cases, the main aim of the leadership is simply to outlast the Israeli military onslaught. If they can do that, they will declare victory in this battle, since they will be back in an era in which Israeli liberals, European diplomats, Qatari money, and a host of other non-military forces matter.
I find some clues in Iran's modern political history. In the 19th century, Iran was ruled by the Turkic Qajar dynasty. They tried to be neutral in World War I, but Russia imposed itself and after the war, a new dynasty was declared, the Pahlavi dynasty. The founder lasted until World War II, during which Russia and Britain divided the country to keep Germany out of the oil fields. Again a European world war provoked a political crisis, the founder abdicated in favor of his son, and the son allied himself with America, ruling Iran until the Islamists took over in 1979.
Islamist Iran has made it through politico-military crisis before. The final stages of the 1980s war with Iraq saw Iraqi missiles reaching Tehran. Abandoning the goal of regime change in Iraq and Israel, in favor of a ceasefire, was a huge threat to the system, but they dealt with it by executing all the leftist prisoners (who were the main political alternative in the country), placing Khomeini's natural heir Montazeri under house arrest when he objected, and installing the less qualified loyalist Khamenei as supreme leader when Khomeini died. If Khamenei and the system can survive this war too, they'll call it a victory and install someone younger as supreme leader - that's my scenario.
Appreciated reading an argument that goes mostly against my instincts and natural pessimism. So much hinges on what happens in the next week or two.
Claire – great analysis, as always. I think your crystal ball, though, is a bit clouded by undue (IMO) optimism and a strong case of TDS. Let’s take it number by number.
1. Israel could succeed in toppling the regime. Totally agree. Reza Pahlavi has been making pronouncements right and left, also.
2. There may be a plan for the day after. Yes. The Syrian example gives me real hope. Iran’s future doesn’t have to be – probably cannot be, given the region and the people – representative democracy; a less totalitarian, less theocratic regime is certainly possible.
3. The collapse of that vile regime would be the best thing to happen in this century. I totally agree with all the text in this section; the headline is beginning to veer into the “undue optimism” category. It would certainly be the best thing for Israel and for the wretched people of Lebanon, Syria, Yemen, and many other countries in the region. The world is much bigger, though, and has bigger fish to fry. Certainly a step in the right direction, though.
5. But it wouldn’t just be astonishingly good news for Iran. The end of political Islam? I don’t think so. Just like with Communism, the appeal of radical, political Islam will never die. I have a saying: Mordor is always there. It may be quiescent for a while, but it is never defeated, and it never goes away. “the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?" - Solzhenitsyn
6. Just as authoritarianism tends to be contagious, so is liberalization. Again, I agree with the text – the fall of an evil regime will inspire democracy movements, and the absence of Iranian drones will benefit Ukraine. I am not sure it will “galvanize” anything, though. It will remove (hopefully) active support for many terrorist organizations and religious movements, which may allow the suppressed populace to demand freedom, or at least a voice; but again, given the history and the dynamics of the region, I don’t see democracy flourishing everywhere; or even anywhere.
7. They could even take Putin down with them. Now we are getting into the “undue euphoria” category. Putin has the support of the vast majority of Russians. In a recent Levada Center poll about the most outstanding people in history according to Russians, Stalin was first with 42% and Putin was second with 31% (Lenin was third with 28%). That tells you everything you need to know. Putin will not be gone until he (a) dies or (b) is removed via a coup. Neither is very likely in the short term. (A humiliating military defeat, even a series of them over a protracted period of time, will not do it – look at 1940-43 Stalin).
8. It’s a better world already. Yes, I agree that removing the possibility of a nuclear Iran is crucial, and nuclear proliferation in the region is certain if that is not done.
9. Yes, they might now race for the Bomb. I think it’s clear that Israel will not let it happen. Iran is totally disarmed at this point. Israel is pounding it where it wants, how it wants, for as long as it wants. Even if Fordow survives, there is nobody left to rebuild the capabilities to construct and deliver a nuclear device. Plus, whatever emerges from the rubble, Mossad will have even better intelligence and capabilities for operating within Iran. I am sure thousands of Iranians have been reaching out to them with offers of help and cooperation. And yes, OF COURSE, we (the US) must strike Fordow to make it an utter impossibility instead of an unlikely probability.
10. My God, the antisemites are idiots. Yes, many folks are ideologically captured or have given in to irrational hatred, but I think you have a very, very blinkered idea of what MAGA is and what Trump supporters believe. A GrayHouse poll conducted June 15-16, 2025, surveyed 450 Trump 2024 voters and found strong support for Israel’s actions against Iran. Key findings include: 83% backed Israel’s military strikes on Iran. 80% supported the U.S. providing offensive weapons to Israel for striking Iranian military targets. 86% favored supplying Israel with defensive weapons to protect against Iranian attacks. 91% agreed the U.S. should provide intelligence to Israel for defense purposes. 72% supported direct U.S. military action targeting Iran to prevent nuclear weapon development. 80% viewed Iran as a destabilizing force that sponsors terrorism, threatens U.S. allies, and undermines American interests. 72% considered Iran a serious threat to U.S. national security. 73% believed Iran cannot be trusted to honor diplomatic agreements and may develop nuclear weapons in secret. 85% supported Israel’s military actions in Gaza following the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack. Please do not extrapolate what you see in some X posts or what you read in the unpardonably biased NYT and its ilk to the American population at large. And for every Marjorie Taylor Greene, there is an Ilhan Omar and AOC.
Isn’t Iran also in a much stronger position wrt human capital than Iraq or Libya when it comes to forming a stable non-theocratic government if the regime is toppled? Did either of those countries actually have such a large pro-democracy movement or a younger generation educated and open to the modern world?
Thank you for the thoughtful contrarian take.
Trump’s actions seem to be based on the principle that Iran cannot be allowed to develop a nuclear weapon. Full stop.
He isn’t going to be distracted by Bannon and Carlson not just because Miriam Adelson gave him $100 million and not just because he has sort of Jewish grandchildren, but because he thinks that this is winnable and that a victory would set him up for a third term at least.
By the way, Claire, it’s “the pros” that you’re yearning for who brought the world to the miserable shape that we are all experiencing. It’s those same pros who allowed Iran to reach the cusp of developing nuclear weapons.
The “pros” are a disaster.
We have in essence done this by electing a chief executive who is erratic and typically, disdainful of advice from professionals. Unfortunately, there is no requirement that voters take the time to become reasonably well informed about the facts and understand something of the likely outcomes of their decisions.
These days everyone is a cynic and there is diminished confidence in people of education, experience and proven ability — not to mention, good character— so as a consequence we have felons, drunks and nitwits populating the corridors of power.
As I recall, what we are terming "the pros" include Dick Cheney, Don Rumsfeld and the interventionist NeoCons who egged on GW Bush to invade Iraq and finish off Saddam's awful regime (a good thing, imo) and led the country into decades of chaos (NOT a GT, imo).
With that record of confusion and incompetent leadership as context, outside observers have cause to believe that if the USA got involved in Israel's war against Iran, we would find a way to muck that up as well. Especially as we are now led by an erratic president surrounded by sycophants and morons, it would be best for America and for the world to let the people of the Middle East work out their differences.
Since we are talking about options for "best possible outcomes", if we really want to see a denuclearized Iran, would it not be better for a new, democratic Iranian government to voluntarily undertake, with international help and supervision, rather than bombing their nuclear facilities and spreading radioactive dust all around the atmosphere?
Yes you are right; the neoconservative pros were as dimwitted as the liberal internationalist pros. They might have been even worse. It’s the pros who got us into this mess in the first place.
We should ask to good Lord to save us from the pros.
Maybe outsource foreign policy to Substackers??
How much worse could they do than the “experts?”
The pros had a working treaty that kept Iran years from developing working weapons.
But you forget, it was the populists that threw that away, Trump during his first term.
That treaty was useless. It guaranteed Iran’s ability to acquire nuclear weapons over time. People of good will can disagree about this; I presume you disagree. Even if you do, the sanctions relief provided by the JCPOA (along with the pallets of cash that Obama delivered to Iran in 2016 to ransom four American hostages) were used by Iran to arm and provide financial support for Hamas, Hezbollah and the Houthis. It was used to empower anti-American zealots in the Shia community in Iraq. Iran massively destabilized Lebanon and almost single-handedly propped up the odious Alawite regime in Syria. It allowed Iran to develop a fearsome ballistic missile program and deadly drones that it provided to Russia to use against Ukraine. It also facilitated an alliance between Iran and American adversaries like Russia, China and North Korea. All of this was done while the “pros” sat around and did nothing. The “pros” that you and Claire wish were in charge belong in the minor leagues. As Claire herself acknowledges, the world seems to be falling apart around us. It’s all happened while the “pros” were calling the shots.
Whether it’s Republican neoconservatives or Democratic liberal internationalists, their record of failure is unprecedented. The last time Trump was President he assassinated the Quds Force Commander, Qasem Soleimani. How did the Democrats react? Exactly like they’re reacting now. Back in 2020 Majority Leader Schumer questioned why Soleimani needed to be “killed now.” Schumer worried that the killing was hasty and ill-considered” and expressed worry that the strike “might push the U.S. closer to another endless war in the Middle East.”
Then Speaker Pelosi called Soleimani’s killing a “provocative and disproportionate action that risked escalating tensions with Iran.” She went on to bemoan that the “Administration has conducted the strikes in Iraq targeting high-level Iranian military officials and killing Iranian Quds Force Commander Qasem Soleimani without an Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF) from Congress against Iran.”
It’s hard to know how a President Harris might have performed in the current situation if she had been elected but it’s not hard to guess how her key foreign policy advisor, Phil Gordon would have reacted. He would be cozying up to Iran while excoriating Israel. “Gordon’s a pros “pro.”
Like most so called pros, he’s a clown.
“The treaty was useless”
The treaty was working just fine. Trump unilaterally cancelled it, then tried to make a new one many years later. He failed and now we are at major risk of being dragged into a war we didn’t need to fight.
What has gotten us here is Donald Trump and you blame everyone else.
There are many things that could go right if Israel is victorious. That doesn’t mean they will, but it’s certainly well within the world of the conceivable. Here’s a short list.
1) Iran isn’t a country, it’s a localized multiethnic empire ruled by Persians. An Israeli victory might inspire the Azeris is Northwestern Iran to achieve independence and federate or join Azerbaijan. This would be a very good outcome for them.
2) Similarly, the Balochs in southeastern Iran might revolt and achieve independence. This would be good for the Balochs and bad for a country almost as miserable as Iran which, of course, is Pakistan. Pakistan already has problems with its Balochs and a restive Baloch population in Pakistan would divert the Pakistani military’s attention away from its quarrels with India which would be an excellent outcome (Claire, maybe you could get some comments from Vivek about this possibility). Independence for the Iranian Balochs would also be bad for China which controls the Pakistani port which is quite close.
3)An Israeli victory in Iran would tilt Syria to the west even more than it currently is. The whole region might be stabilized which might encourage the millions of Syrian immigrants in Europe who are destabilizing the whole European continent to return home. This would be good for Europe and good for liberal democracy because much of Europe’s current passion for populism stems from the anger that Muslim immigrants in Europe inspires.
3) No more drones or Iranian assistance to Russia in its war with Ukraine.
4) Less oil for China (at least in the short run). The other side of the coin is that as oil prices go up, Russia benefits but so does Texas, Oklahoma and other oil producing regions of the United States.
5) No more weapons or cash for Hamas, Hezbollah or the Houthis. The whole region becomes more peaceful.
6) Less support for radical Palestinians partially empowers more reasonable Palestinians and tempers their expectations.
7) A defeat for Iran and its surrogates might finally quiet the “river to the sea” crowd on American college campuses and inspire them to demonstrate less and study harder until they grow up and start voting Republican as they reach their thirties and forties.
8) The death of the innocent marines and others murdered by Iran in 1983 will finally, at long last, be avenged.
9) No regional nuclear arms race.
10) A massive boon to the Israeli arms industry as the world marvels at the quality of its weapons. Plus a treasure trove of invaluable information for American arms suppliers as it gets to witness its armaments in action.
Thanks for the thoughtful commentary, M. Wig-Wag.
One small nit to pick. You said, "Iran isn’t a country, it’s a localized multiethnic empire ruled by Persians." I believe you mean that Iran is not a "nation." The terms Country, Nation, and State are often used very loosely as synonyms, but they have several definitions.
Here's an attempt to differentiate their meanings:
Country is the territorial entity comprising the State. The State is the formal structure that governs a country. The Nation is both of these, plus the People, unified by and self-identifying with the State.
"One Soil, One Blood, One People" sums up the idea of Nationhood. Of course such a national homogeneity is largely fictive, though there are a few exceptions (Mongolia and Japan come to mind).
I'm capitalizing terms because I get tired of typing in quotation marks, and Substack won't let me underline, italicize or print in boldface.
,
Substack may not allow text attributes, but you can still fake them 𝗹𝗶𝗸𝗲 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 or 𝑡ℎ𝑖𝑠. Just go to yaytext.com or any similar site. The only drawback is that some programs will not copy-paste the text afterwards — though others, like OpenOffice, will.
The point about Iran being “not a country” (regardless of terminological accuracy) is paramount. It is the same with Libya, Afghanistan, Syria and many others. Thinking of them as “countries” in the same sense we conceive of Brazil or Poland being countries immediately leads to distorted expectations. Nothing constructive can happen in Iran because there is no such polity as Iran the way we assume there is; this holds regardless of whether Iran (whatever that is) is bombed flat or permitted to keep going.
You are entirely correct. Adam Garfinkle is a stickler about this and wrote about it in a recent post on the “Strawberry Patch.” If you don’t subscribe, I highly recommend it.
Thanks for the tip about Adam Garfunkel. I’ll check it out.
I see this path here too, I’m just mortified of the other possibilities and not optimistic. This part gets me the most:
“This is no time for that crew of imbeciles, traitors, and fourth-string New York real estate guys. Get the pros in”
Zero chance of that happening. The pros are sidelined and the President barely gets the intel reports. With this situation as delicate as can be, we need the A-team and we’ve got the D-team.
I think the path to regime change in Iran is more fraught and difficult than most realize due to the history there. We had a compliant client there, the Shah, and think Iranians will be very skeptical of anyone working with Israel or the US as future leadership. But I’m no expert and there is obviously appetite among Iranians to liberalize too.
I’m worried Iran has a nuke or two completed under the radar they might use imminently.
I’m also worried how Russia/Putin influence over Trump may somehow kneecap us and advantage Iran. And I worry our interceptor missile stockpiles are draining down with the prospect of hot world war looking more likely every day.
I just hope these morons bumble their way into some lucky outcome.