https://www.bostonglobe.com/2025/07/01/opinion/regime-change-iran-trump-ayatollahs-mullahs/
The dangerous American fantasy of regime change in Iran
As bad as the government is, it would be a mistake for outsiders to topple it.
By Stephen Kinzer – Boston Globe - July 1, 2025
As American planes dropped megabombs on Iran’s nuclear sites, it was inevitable that some in Washington would dream of overthrowing its religious regime. It is a recurrent fantasy. Regime change in Iran, the rosy vision goes, would give the United States a submissive partner in Tehran while punishing the mullahs for decades of defiance beginning with the hostage crisis of 1978-79.
That vision ignores two uncomfortable realities. First, the Islamic regime is far from collapsing, even if the mullahs are unpopular. Second, if it did collapse, Iran could plunge into chaos. Iranians recognize this. Many detest their government, but Iranians see failed states around them and don’t want to join that club.
Soon after the US bombings, President Trump sent out a provocative message: “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!!!”
Senior officials quickly tried to walk back Trump’s threat. “We don’t want a regime change,” Vice President JD Vance said. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth insisted that bombing Iran “was not and has not been about regime change.”
The White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, however, further muddied the waters by suggesting that Iranians might “rise up against this brutal terrorist regime” if it doesn’t compromise with its enemies. “If the Iranian regime refuses to come to a peaceful diplomatic solution — which the president is still interested and engaging in, by the way — why shouldn’t the Iranian people take away the power of this incredibly violent regime that has been suppressing them for years?”
It was an odd formulation, since history shows no example of a people who rebelled because their leaders refused to pursue diplomacy. In any case Leavitt’s boss quickly contradicted her — and himself. When a reporter asked President Trump if he was truly seeking regime change in Iran, he replied “No” and added: “Regime change takes chaos, and ideally, we don’t want to see so much chaos.”
Mr. President: Congratulations on recognizing that essential truth. Please don’t change your mind again. Iranians want a better government, but they want to shape it themselves. Regime change from within can bring new stability. Bombing cannot.
Iranians have plenty of reasons to complain. Since 1979 they have been under the misrule of a repressive and corrupt clerical regime. It imposes a harsh code of conduct and dress on women and imprisons those who speak out for freedom. Great national challenges, from economic diversification to water supply, go unaddressed.
Iranians, however, know perhaps better than any other people on earth that no matter how bad a regime is, the next one could be worse. The mullahs came to power in 1979 after Mohammad Reza Shah was overthrown. The coalition that swept the shah out was wildly diverse, from religious fanatics to Communists to liberal-minded democrats. No one knew what the post-shah regime would be, but all agreed that whatever emerged would be an improvement. They were wrong. Instead of going from bad to good, conditions went from bad to worse. If the mullahs are deposed, that could happen again.
Many Iranians don’t want to take that chance. Their own neighborhood provides sobering examples of the devastation that American-sponsored regime change can bring. Syria, Iraq, and Libya were all stable countries under dictatorship. People were able to live normal lives as long as they did not criticize the government. Anyone could walk the streets safely or sit in a cafe without worrying that a terror bomb might explode.
After American power led to the fall of the Syrian, Iraqi, and Libyan leaders, democracy did not emerge. Syria is ruled by a former terrorist for whose arrest the United States once offered a $1 million bounty. Iraq is factionalized and dysfunctional. Libya is a failed state and breeding ground for terror.
Iranians have painful collective memories of foreign intervention. During the 19th and early 20th centuries, Russia and Britain effectively controlled Iran. They seized Iran’s territories in what are now Azerbaijan and Afghanistan. Britain imposed an accord that gave it ownership of Iran’s vast oil reserves. When democracy finally emerged in the 1950s and Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh nationalized the oil industry, the United States and Britain organized a coup to depose him. That led to 25 years of royal dictatorship followed by more than 40 years under the mullahs.
Many in Iran share two basic convictions: The regime is bad, but foreign powers should not try to overthrow it. That is not a contradiction. Political change that comes after bombing or invasion is usually for the worse. If it comes from within — if Iranians rather than outsiders shape Iran’s fate — it will be more authentic, profound, and long-lasting.
Stephen Kinzer is a senior fellow at the Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs at Brown University.