Once again, regime change is back on the agenda. What began as a military operation by Israel for the destruction of Iran’s nuclear facilities soon morphed into calls for a regime change in the country. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu recorded video messages directly appealing to the people of Iran, assuring them that Israel had nothing against them and that it was their regime that Israel was against. Even the US joined in the chorus with President Donald Trump saying on Truth Social, “It’s not politically correct to use the term, “Regime Change,” but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn’t there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!!”
Meanwhile, missiles and drones flew back and forth between the Jewish state and the Islamic Republic till the US intervened. It first bombed the three main nuclear sites, including Fordow, buried under a mountain – the effectiveness of these strikes is still being analysed – and then declared a ceasefire, bringing the 12-day war to an end, at least for now.
Advertisement – Scroll to continue
Who Wants A Regime Change?
What did we see after the declaration of the ceasefire?
The visuals emerging from Tehran were of jubilation and celebration. If there are those mourning that a regime change had not been effected, we do not see them – at least not inside Iran. Most of those unhappy remain outside of Iran. Amongst these, the most vocal and arguably the best known is Prince Reza Pahlavi II, the descendant of the last Shah of Iran.
Here, my Iranian friend X comes to mind. In her sixties, a divorcee, a single mother and with dual Iranian-American citizenship. She hated the regime and is an atheist. I remember the first time I went to pick her up from the airport in Delhi. Mahan Air had arrived from Tehran, and what amazed me most was how the women passengers on the flight took off their hijabs the moment they entered the Delhi airport terminal. My friend did the same. But here’s the twist: she blames the West for the theocratic regime and dislikes Israel even more than she dislikes the regime. Why? Not because she is anti-Semitic; she has Jewish friends. But, she says, because of what Israel has done to the Palestinians, and how it keeps provoking countries in the region.
Iranians Want Change
Why do I bring up this example? Because she represents a large chunk of Iranian opinion. Her son and his friends – a generation younger – are as critical of the regime. They dislike how the regime has frittered away billions by maintaining proxies across the region – traditional ones like Hamas and Hezbollah, more recent ones like the Houthis, and the numerous Shia militias in Iraq that are on Iran’s payroll. Of course, they are empathetic towards the Palestinians, and Iran, they think, must do its bit to help them, but not by training and arming Hamas. Instead, they say, the money could have been used to take care of Iranians, reeling from sanctions and unemployment, with many having to seek jobs in countries like the UAE, which, till a few decades ago, were themselves impoverished and far more backwards than Iran. Yet, they are united in their opposition to the return of the Shah’s descendant. Why was the Shah deposed in the first place, they ask.
That an increasing number of Iranians want change was evident in the presidential elections that took place in Iran last year. The tragic death of President Ebrahim Raisi notwithstanding, Iranians going to the polls chose a person who had promised them change and personal liberties: Massoud Pezeshkian. That he was chosen not too long after riots and protests over women’s attire and the death of Mahsa Amini testifies to the change that many Iranians longed for. In fact, for many years now, Iranians in cities like Tehran have been engaging in activities like western dancing and yoga – in secrecy. Many have converted to other religions – but have gone overseas to do so. On their return, they once again resume life as Muslims are required to in the Islamic Republic, practising their new faith in secret.
West’s Misadventures Must Be A Lesson
And yet, a forceful, imposed regime change may not be the answer.
Over the last two decades, such (mis)adventures in the region have only birthed chaos, violence, and destruction, not only in respective countries but across the region.
For 20 years, the US waged a war against the Taliban inside Afghanistan, only to hand back power to them. In the process, however, neighbouring countries felt the heat of radicalism and terrorism. Here, too, plans and talks to bring back the King came to nought.
A regime change in Iraq, on the false premise that the country had weapons of mass destruction, sowed tensions and created the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). Paradoxically, it also increased Iranian influence in Iraq. Iraq has yet to find stability and security.
The most recent regime change, in Syria, has brought a former ISIS member to power. While it is true that few shed tears for the fallen regime of Bashar Al Assad, the six months that the interim government of Ahmed Al Shara has been in charge – with ample support from the Arab world, Turkiye, the EU and the US – the most significant events have been the massacres of Allawite and Christian minority communities in the coastal region, and the recent church bombing by an ISIS suicide bomber that claimed at least 25 lives.
Similarly, a regime change in Libya again sowed chaos and emboldened ISIS, paving its way into North Africa, and plunged the country into a civil war that continues to burn.
Iran Is Different
Iran, on the other hand, has a large territory, a far larger population than all the above, is educated and has a worldview of its own. Moreover, the ruling regime is not a minority one like that of Saddam Hussein or Al-Assad. Neither can the Supreme Leader, whatever his shortcomings may be, be compared with someone like the late Muammar Gaddafi.
Any attempts at a regime change engineered by external forces, and Western ones at that, are sure to trigger far more chaos and disruption. Like many Indians, many Iranians distrust the West. That’s because in public imagination, they see the West as being guilty of propping up the degenerate regime of the last Shah; engineering the 1953 coup against the democratic government of Mohammed Mossadegh, which in turn paved the way for the Islamic regime of Ayatollah Ruhullah Khomeini to seize power in Tehran; supporting Saddam Hussein against Iran in the eight-year-long Iran-Iraq war; and now supporting Israel’s occupation of Palestinian lands. Neither the military nor the elite guards would give up without a fight, while we are confronted with ghosts such as groups like ISIS, which sprang up from the remains of the Iraqi military.
Nation, Not Regime
Moreover, while the recent conflict has exposed the frailties of the theocratic regime in Iran, there is no proper alternative inside or outside the country to supplant it. On the other hand, to see the destruction of one’s country, to see nuclear scientists being assassinated with impunity or public broadcasts being bombed is to see one’s own nation being attacked, not a regime. This usually results in the public closing ranks around its government, no matter how disliked otherwise.
There is, thus, all the more reason to believe that Iranians will not take kindly to a West-manoeuvred regime change. Moreover, no proper alternative has been offered by the US. The only alternative so far seems to be the descendant of the last Shah, but most Iranians view him as distant and cut off from the ground realities inside Iran.
Remember Tunisia?
A regime change also has the potential to widen fault lines and spur minority communities such as the Baloch, the Kurds, and the Azeris to seek greater autonomy, or even secession. This is sure to spill over across the borders of Iran into the territories of neighbouring countries such as Pakistan, Turkiye, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, and Azerbaijan. That’s a clear recipe for disaster, to which India will not be immune.
Any transformation, therefore, should be effected from inside, from within Iranian society, by Iranians themselves. This is what has made the regime change in Tunisia, for instance, far more effective and stable. Tunisia, where the Arab Spring began, did not wait or depend on external forces to engineer a change. It was implemented by Tunisians themselves. Any Iranian Spring, too, must begin in Iran.
(The author is a journalist and political analyst)
Disclaimer: These are the personal opinions of the author
