Trump’s Reckless Decision to Pursue Regime Change in Iran
On Saturday morning, the United States and Israel launched a military campaign aimed at overthrowing the ruling regime in Iran. Military strikes have already killed an unknown number of Iranian leaders and civilians; Iran retaliated by striking U.S. allies in the Middle East and a U.S. naval base in Bahrain.
A few hours after the war began, I spoke on the phone with Matt Duss, executive vice president of the Center for International Policy and former foreign policy adviser to Senator Bernie Sanders. During our conversation, which was written for length and clarity, we discussed why the United States decided to embark on another conflict in the Middle East, how Trump misled voters when he declared himself a peace candidate in the 2024 presidential election, and whether the Democratic Party leadership is equipped to stand up to Trump on Iran.
What do you think has changed since June, when the Trump administration claimed that Iran’s nuclear capability had been totally destroyed?
It soon became clear that these claims that Iran could destroy the nuclear program were false. There was even leaked information from a US intelligence report that refuted this claim and made it clear that the Iranian program was clearly delayed, but not destroyed. And now, of course, one of the justifications he gave for today’s attack is that Iran’s nuclear program has become dangerous again, and that’s why we’re doing what we’re doing. But he offers multiple other justifications, not unlike the run-up to Iraq in 2002 and 2003: he simply offers a whole range of reasons, and everyone can sort of choose the one they think tastes best. But none of this really means that Iran poses an imminent threat to the United States. I think the emergency, if there is one, is that Iran has rebuilt its missile capacity much more quickly than many expected.
I heard this from Israeli analysts last October. What really surprised them was how Iran is rebuilding its missile capability much faster than expected. These missiles are defensive and have so far been used as retaliatory measures. You don’t have to like the Iranian regime – I don’t – to recognize that countries have the right to defend themselves. Iran has once again used these missiles in horrific ways, firing them at cities and civilian centers in Israel. This is indefensible. But it appears that Israel’s regional security doctrine, now supported by the United States, is not just that Israel has the right to defend itself, but that only Israel has the right to defend itself in the region. And now these missiles pose an unacceptable constraint on Israel’s ability to strike anywhere it wants at any time, an approach to regional security that is clearly supported by the Trump administration.
You said the missiles were defensive, but they were also used to bomb civilian areas in Israel. So this was a response to Israel’s actions against Iran?
RIGHT. They were in retaliation. Again, the way they were used is indefensible, but let’s just recognize that it was a response to Israeli and American attacks.
You mentioned the war in Iraq and the justifications put forward. But in recalling that debate, there has been an effort to advocate for regime change along several different lines, no pun intended. Human rights abuses, fears about the development of weapons of mass destruction and even the obviously highly exaggerated links between Iraq and Al-Qaeda have been widely exploited. In this case, many justifications are sometimes given, but there seems to be no consistent evidence, nor is it credible that they care about these non-nuclear missiles or human rights.
That’s the amazing thing about this: it makes the Bush administration’s preparation for the Iraq war look better. The Trump administration made almost no attempt to present a coherent case to the American public, much less to Congress or the United Nations, which the Bush administration did. It’s not even really recognized that Trump should need Congressional authorization to commit the United States to another war. Certainly, there is no recognition that the United States would need international or multilateral support to achieve this. So yes, I would say that the differences between the period before the Iraq war and this one are very significant.
Over the past few months, the Iranian regime has witnessed incredible repression against Iranians. We don’t know how many people were killed, but they number in the thousands. The Trump administration has at times threatened Iran, saying it cannot kill protesters, and has at times expressed concern for the well-being of the Iranian people, but the administration has evidently allowed the regime to continue killing protesters. What do you think would be a sensible attitude for America to take toward Iran, and does the crackdown we’ve seen in recent months change your view on the issue?
Obviously, this is a bad diet. It is a repressive regime. He is using enormous violence against his own people, as we have seen horrific examples in recent weeks. I think the most logical approach to Iran was President Barack Obama’s, which was to recognize that Iran poses a challenge on several fronts, the most important of which is the possibility of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons. This is why he has demonstrated diplomacy to address this challenge aggressively. He did this with close international partners and secured what I think was clearly a pretty strong nonproliferation agreement that included extensive inspections and monitoring of Iran’s nuclear program. This solved that problem, but it also created an opportunity to begin to address the other challenges posed by Iran.
