Reject Regime Change Once and For All

Regime changers don’t see these states as having their own legitimate interests and concerns, and instead view them simply as targets to be forced to do what Washington wants.

I read CNAS’ new report calling on the U.S. to threaten Iran with regime change so you don’t have to:

The Iranian leadership would have no guarantee that the U.S. wouldn’t turn around and attack them after they complied. The demand to make concessions under threat of attack would be taken as an insult. Depending on what is meant by abandoning “the nuclear program,” the demand itself is probably so far-reaching that it is a non-starter for their government. The Iranian government has invested too much time, effort, and prestige in its nuclear program to give it up entirely. Threatening weaker states with attack is a despicable practice, and it is also one that usually inspires angry resistance rather than submission. 

As I say in the column, it is hard to believe that anyone is still talking about regime change as a policy option after previous attempts have proven to be so disastrous and costly. Unfortunately, the state of the debate over Iran policy is so toxic and impoverished that the same awful ideas keep getting recycled. When coercion and threats repeatedly fail to compel another government to yield to U.S. demands, many of our policymakers and analysts conclude that the answer is simply to do more of the same. If threatening to attack Iran’s nuclear facilities isn’t getting the message across, according to this report, maybe the solution is to threaten attacking the leadership itself. The possibility that constantly threatening to attack their country is a major reason for Iranian intransigence seems entirely lost on them.