American Strategic Goal in the Middle East: Ending the Iranian Theocratic Regime American Think Tank: Preparing for the End of the Islamic Republic of Iran

After the possible end of the Iranian theocracy, the United States cannot ensure the emergence of a democratic system.

In late July, Iranian dissidents from all walks of life gathered in Munich to hold an event, expressing unified opposition to the Tehran Islamic regime. Since the past few months, Israel and the United States have launched attacks on Iran's nuclear facilities, making how to deal with the Iranian regime a focal point of debate in various political fields. These attacks exposed the weakness of the Iranian government and raised questions about regime change or transition. Although the United States and its allies should hope that a post-clerical Iran becomes a prosperous democratic country, policymakers should also be prepared for a power vacuum.

Israel and the United States easily struck Iran's nuclear program and gained air superiority, exposing the weak state of the Iranian regime. For the Iranian people, the impact is obvious. Thousands of people have been killed, tortured, and oppressed under the rule of the Ayatollah. Moreover, we have reason to believe that the regime's views do not align with those of many Iranians. In other words, ordinary Iranians are much more moderate than the fundamentalists who control the government.

It is unclear why the West should care about or even favor a different regime. First, there is the issue of terrorism. For decades since the Islamic Revolution, hundreds of people across the West have been killed, injured, and kidnapped by Iran and its agents. Although Israel recently took action against Iranian proxies, these organizations still pose a threat to Western military personnel and civilians.

Secondly, there is the nuclear issue. Iran has clearly stated its intention to destroy Israel and harm the interests of the United States in the region. Given Iran's continuous violent rhetoric and actions towards Western countries, Iran may threaten to use nuclear weapons to achieve its goals.

Israel and the United States have demonstrated the ability to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities, but just because this success occurred does not mean it will continue indefinitely. A pro-Western regime that is unwilling to conduct nuclear attacks on American and Israeli cities is always better than bombing nuclear facilities every few years. The struggle between the mullahs and the United States and its allies is the core interest and reason for their existence; they will not stop their struggle simply because some facilities are destroyed.

This does not mean that the United States, Israel, or any other Western country should send soldiers to carry out tasks to force a change of the Iranian regime. If Iran is to escape its current Islamic theocracy, this change must come from the Iranian people themselves. The regime change operations in countries such as Iraq, Syria, Libya, and Afghanistan have all failed. The United States has spent thousands of lives and billions of dollars trying to bring democracy to countries that have never known it.

A democratic, pro-Western Iranian regime would undoubtedly be more desirable than the current situation. Ideally, the dissidents who gathered in Munich would become part of the transition from Islamic theocracy to democracy. However, it is wise for policymakers to proceed with caution. People had high hopes for Iraq, but it became one of the breeding grounds for ISIS, and the Taliban regained control of Afghanistan. Once the Ayatollah regime falls, who can say which extremist groups might suddenly emerge to vie for Iran's future?

So, what should the West do? From a military perspective, Washington should not try to overthrow the Iranian regime. America's interest lies in preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons and ending its support for terrorism. However, supporting it would be in America's interest if a popular uprising breaks out.

Imposing sanctions on the Iranian government and sharing intelligence with dissidents are measures we can take. Specifically, secondary sanctions should be imposed on importers to hit Iran's oil industry. Iran's economy relies on oil revenue, so sanctioning its oil imports would deprive the regime of the funds needed to suppress the rebellion. Most importantly, policymakers need to remember that regime change is the right of the Iranian people. American troops should not be involved in regime change or nation-building.

If the situation really descends into chaos, the prudent course of action for the United States would be indirect intervention. Intelligence cooperation with the Kurdish people of Iran would be a good start, as the United States previously worked with them to fight ISIS. Such a partnership would allow our defense officials to closely monitor the movements of anti-American terrorists.

For decades, Iran has been a major source of terrorism in the Middle East, providing weapons and funding to various terrorist organizations. Iran's nuclear program further demonstrates the regime's intention to incite chaos. Thousands of Iranian dissidents are striving to free themselves from the clerical dictatorship and create a free future.

Although the West should support their efforts, this ultimately remains the struggle of the Iranian people. Only they can decide the country's future. If the Ayatollah is deposed, as has happened in other countries, he may well be replaced by chaos. We hope that the opposition will successfully establish a more inclusive government, but we should also prepare for the worst.

Source: The National Interest

Author: Matthew Cookson

Date: September 19

Original: www.toutiao.com/article/1843768221237252/

Statement: This article represents the views of the author himself.