Words and Phrases We Could Do Without

Are we really back to ‘regime change’?

With the strike on Iran’s nuclear sites, Donald Trump has risked engaging us in another foreign war. Already, chatter abounds about “regime change” as the only way to end permanently the Iranian threat.

On Sunday, Trump personally contradicted Vice President JD Vance’s assertion that our policy was not regime change. “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!!!,” Trump insisted, echoing the sentiments of former president George W. Bush, whom Trump excoriated for, well…pursuing regime change.

You would have thought that after decades of foreign policy calamities and humiliation for the United States and its allies, “regime change” would have lost its allure. However, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said that, while not a “goal,” regime change could be the result of its war to destroy Iran’s nuclear capability.

“In a press conference with Israeli reporters [last] Monday, Netanyahu reiterated that message. ‘This is a very weak regime that now understands how weak it is... we could see many changes in Iran,’” Axios reported. “Subtlety is not the objective. Netanyahu appeared on an Iranian opposition TV program on Monday called ‘Regime Change in Iran’ and mentioned that nobody saw the fall of the Soviet Union or Syria's Assad regime coming until it happened.” (And, “No one expects the Spanish Inquisition!”) More explicitly, Defense Minister Israel Katz declared that “a dictator like Khamenei can't continue to exist.”

Visions of regime change dance in the heads of Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) and other Iraq War proponents. As someone whose worldview has altered based on decades of this failed approach (evidence and facts can change your mind!), I would urge that we collectively remember that “regime change” has a rotten track record.

“Going back in the post-World War II era, history has shown the United States very capable at both toppling governments and then promptly getting the sequel disastrously wrong,” Time magazine reminds us. “Grenada, Panama, and Haiti left U.S. administrations in the political muck. Vietnam was the biggest catastrophe in most Americans’ memories.” We can decapitate regimes, but—more often than not—we wind up with fruitless, virtually endless war; failed states; and/or worse outcomes (e.g., the Muslim Brotherhood replacing Hosni Mubarak).

Writing in Haaretz, Z’vi Bar’el recounts: “The assassinations of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, Taliban leader Mullah Omar in Afghanistan, Muammar Gadhafi in Libya and Ali Abdullah Saleh in Yemen left behind destroyed countries that are far from European or American liberalism.” Instead, he points out, “These killings also spawned new threats—some which, as in Yemen and Iraq, have become integral parts of the regional threat posed by Iran.”

Part of the problem is the terminology. “Regime change” sounds so benign, as if we are exchanging a sweater at Macy’s. After all, who would not want to swap out a revolutionary, repressive, terror-sponsoring, aggressive regime for…well, for what?

The U.S. is fully capable of smashing a regime. (Well, sometimes. See: Vietnam.) “Regime smashing” or “regime annihilation” might be possible if one is willing to stomach enough casualties, expense, and fallout (e.g., attacks on U.S. personnel, hostage taking of U.S. personnel, consistent terror attacks in the Middle East and beyond, closure of the Gulf of Hormuz that spikes oil prices). Therefore, we should be highly skeptical of arguments that “regime change” would in essence give us a “regime upgrade.”

Regarding Iran, historical amnesiacs should be asked:

· What force or faction is poised to take power?

· Would there be an extended civil war?

· What if Iran becomes a failed state?

· How do we secure scattered nuclear materials?

· Would the new government be less repressive? Less aggressive?

· Will the uncertainty set off a mass migration of thousands of people? Where will they go?

· Would we be obligated to help rebuild Iran? What would it cost? How do we pay for it?

· What happens to oil production and prices?

· Where do the remnants of the old regime go? Are we prepared to see retribution/mass executions carried out against the prior regime?

· How do we protect dual nationals in Iran?

· Does toppling of a Muslim regime by the “the Great Satan” trigger retaliation by other groups and regimes?

· How are we supposed to “pivot to Asia” when tied down in another Middle East quagmire?

· If we ultimately have to fight and spend resources on Israel’s wars, what happens to the commitment to maintain Israel’s technological edge (premised on the notion that it can defend itself)?

· How do we know that the new regime won’t seek to rebuild its nuclear program?

Those are a fraction of the questions that we would need to answer. (Moreover, as former defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld said, those are the “known unknowns,” but what about the “unknown unknowns,” the issues we cannot even imagine?)

“Regime change” succeeds at capturing the fantastical nature of the ambitions of those with short historical memories. No wonder some would prefer to dress up this failed, destructive, and irrational scheme. We should stop using that innocuous phrase and call it what it is: Regime decapitalization, with no plan for what comes next and no guarantee the alternative will be any better.