Shireen Hunter
Aaron David Miller's view that only regime change would guarantee that Iran
would not seek nuclear weapons is riddled with flaws.The first is that he
refuses to admit that Iran has declared that it does not seek
nuclear weapons. Iran is a member of the NPT and has declared that it does
not seek nuclear weapons. As proof of seriousness, Tehran has submitted to
the most intrusive regime of inspections by the IAEA. Yet, since 1993,
when Iran had not reached high levels of enrichment of uranium, Israeli
officials have claimed that Iran is six months, a year, or even just
several weeks away from having a bomb. When the US, three European states,
China, and Russia tried to reach a deal with Iran to limit its capacity to
enrich uranium and make sure that it did not develop a weapon, Israel and
its supporters in the US did all they could to prevent the 2015 deal. Once
the 2015 agreement known as JCPOA was signed, they sabotaged it from
within and without the US government. Then when in 2018 Donald Trump left
the deal, Netanyahu boasted that he had convinced Donald Trump to quit it.
It was only after the US withdrawal from the JCPOA that Iran gradually
increased the level of its enrichment of uranium, initially in the hope
that the US would agree to rejoin the nuclear deal. In short, Israel's
sabotage of the 2015 deal was responsible for Iran increasing its
enrichment activities.
The second flaw is that the article refuses to admit that Iran,
irrespective of the character of its regime, has regional rivals and even
enemies and needs to defend itself against them. Not since the adventures
of Nadir Shah in the mid-18th century has Iran invaded any country or
acquired its neighbors’ territory. (The three Persian Gulf islands were a
matter of dispute between Britain and Iran, since none of the Sheikhs of
the Persian Gulf were actual states). By contrast, Iran had been invaded
by both great and lesser powers. It has lost territory, including in the
Caucasus, Afghanistan (the British separated Herat from Iran by
bombing Khoramshahr), Baluchistan and, of course, the Persian Gulf. When
Iran was forced to give up its claim to Bahrain and agree to the formation
of the so-called United Arab Emirates in 1972, it was ruled by a
pro-Western, secular and modernist king..
Currently, Iran's territorial integrity is challenged by some of its
neighbors, notably the Republic of Azerbaijan and Turkey, with Israel's
support. Erdogan has openly supported Azerbaijan's claims towards the
Iranian province of the same name in a blatant distortion of
historical facts. Pakistan, a nuclear power, despite outward friendship
has supported separatists and other terrorists within Iran's
Baluchistan province, with some help from Saudi Arabia. The Taliban have
exported close to eight million Afghans to Iran, many of whom are Pashtun
and could be weaponized by Afghanistan against Tehran. Iran has spent
billions of dollars on these Afghans and educated hundreds of thousands of
them while chafing under punishing sanctions. Iraqi Kurdistan is used by
others, including Israel, as a base to destabilize Iranian Kurdistan. In
the north, Iran faces Russia, a nuclear state, which clearly uses its
military superiority to intimidate Iran. Iran's current good relations with
Russia is not the result of love for Russia, but out of necessity in the
face of unrelenting Western pressure. To top it all, Iran has Turkey, a
NATO member, as a neighbor. And of course, Israel has used its nuclear
weapon capacity to pursue territorially expansionist policies.
Moreover, in 1980 Iran was subject to aggression by Saddam Hussein, if not
with Western encouragement then with its complacency. Western powers
provided Iraq with the most sophisticated weaponry. Before that, in 1979,
the US experimented with regime change in Iran. Without the collapse of
the Iranian government, Iraq would not have dared to attack Iran.
Ironically, as a result of regime change, America and its regional allies
were saddled with Khomeini..In short , if any country needs all the
weapons it can get, it is Iran.
I am not arguing in favor of a nuclear Iran. Quite the contrary, I
believe that acquiring nuclear weapons would make Iran more vulnerable to
a US military strike. But faced with destruction, any country will try
to acquire what it needs for its defense. Besides, Israel and the US want
Iran to give up its missile and drone capacity as well. But Iran cannot be
expected to disarm unilaterally and become totally defenseless. Any regime
in Iran would refuse such demands and would want a strong defense
system. Those who deny Iran this right, are, in fact, asking for
its destruction. Their problem is not with the nature of the Iranian regime
but with a strong and independent Iran.
Israel and the US turned against the Shah when he began acting more
independently, especially regarding the issue of oil prices and Middle East
politics. Israel was angered by the Shah's signing the Algiers agreement
with Saddam Hussein in 1975 and his reaching out to radical Arabs like
Syria and the PLO. The Shah had also become worried by Israel's territorial
ambitions. The pro-Israel lobby in the US also turned against the Shah and
lobbied in Congress against him. The Shah complained to Simon Peres about
this. It is ironic that now Israel wants his son back on the throne,
although some Israelis prefer Maryam Rajavi, the leader of the cultish MLK.
By the same token, those who ask for regime change are in fact calling for
Iran's destruction, either through direct military action or by punishing
sanctions which have already brought Iran to the point of bankruptcy. The
purpose of these sanctions has always been to cause Iran's internal
collapse without the need for costly military intervention. Yet, anyone who
believe that political collapse in Iran would lead to democracy and a
compliant and pro-West, pro-Israel government in Iran are sadly mistaken.
In fact more crimes have been committed in the name of spreading democracy
globally than by cynical power politics. Most likely, sudden political
collapse in Iran would lead to civil wars and conflict which would likely
extend to neighboring states with unpredictable outcomes.
More sadly, regime change policies have prevented the gradual moderation of
the Iranian leadership and behavior which could have led to the effective
change in the regime's character. Instead , by rebuffing all the overtures
of moderate Iranian governments (Rafsanjani, Khatami, Rouhani) the regime
change advocates have strengthened the hardliners in Iran and prevented
gradual liberalization. For example, the infamous Axis of Evil speech after
the help Iran had given to the US in managing the transition in Afghanistan
greatly contributed to the election of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to the
presidency in 2009. The US withdrawal from the JCPOA contributed to the
defeat of the moderates in 2021. If the US had responded positively to
Iran's overtures in the early 1990s, today the Middle East would have been
different and much death, suffering, and destruction would have been
avoided. Of course, Israel has benefitted from these regime change wars.
Two major Arab states, Iraq and Syria, are now out of the geopolitical
equation. Libya and Sudan have been effectively destroyed. Despite their
oil money Gulf Arabs are not true independent actors
Meanwhile, the US has paid a heavy material and human price for these
so-called wars of choice under the guise of promoting democracy.
In one respect Aaron David Miller is right. The US has an Iran problem or
to put more accurately a hard choice to make. It has had it for a long
time. Before the US, Britain had this problem, namely what to do with Iran.
As long as the Russo-British and then US-Soviet rivalry lasted, the policy
was to keep Iran half alive and deny it to the rival power. At no time did
Britain or the US consider turning Iran into an ally as they have Turkey
and Saudi Arabia , despite their dismal record on democracy and human
rights. This changed after the collapse of the USSR. From being a useful
buffer, Iran turned into a potential regional rival under any regime, even
a friendly one. Then as early as 1992, the American policy shifted to
weakening, isolating, and eventually dividing Iran. But Iran is not Libya
or Sudan. Dividing Iran would be a difficult and very messy affair. The
Iranians would not “go gentle into the good night”. They have survived the
Greeks, the Arabs, the Turks and the Mongols, plus the Russians and
Saddam Hussein -- and they will fight to survive.
Making Iran an ally is not possible now. But the US can reach a mutually
beneficial modus vivendi with Iran. Obsession with isolating Iran has cost
the US dearly in places like Afghanistan and even in the South Caucasus.
Better relations with Iran would increase America's options in dealing with
regional actors, not only in the Middle East but also South and Central
Asia.
Furthermore, an accommodation with the US most likely would encourage other
positive changes in Iran's internal conditions and its external behavior.
Over time, it could even lead to an Israeli-Iranian dialogue. In fact, this
could have already happened if Israel had not insisted that "the road to
Washington goes through Tel Aviv"- now Jerusalem.)
In short, instead of regime change, the US should try serious engagement
with Iran, something that has never been tried and to offer incentives
rather than more pressure. Death is death whether by the force of arms or
by sanctions.