Can Iran and Gaza be “liberated” through regime change?

It is often stated by politicians, reporters and experts that the United States should avoid regime changes because “we are not good at it”.  Au Contraire.  The United States is great at regime change.  Consider Japan, Germany, Italy, France, etc..  President Reagan and President Bush engineered regime changes in the nations that once were ruled over by the defunct Soviet Union through puppet governments.  We replaced the Communist Sandinistas in Nicaragua with a friendly democratic government – and took down Manuel Noriega in Panama.

In modern times (my lifetime or mid-1900s to today), the United States has spread democracy throughout the world through regime change – often following wars and lesser military actions.  Occasionally, regime change is accomplished by working diplomacy with internal and international forces without going to war — as we did in changing from the Ferdinand Marcos dictatorial regime to an American-friendly democracy in the Philippines.  American support for Israel resulted in regime change in Lebanon – and the essential end of Hezbollah.

There have been unfortunate results, however, when we fail to address regime change in a pro-active manner, as when President Carter stood down, Islamic ayatollah terrorists took over Iran in 1979 from the American-friendly Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi.  In 2001, the United States overthrew the Taliban regime in Afghanistan with a pro-American government led by Hamid Karzai.  However, we failed to finish off the Taliban.  Instead, we engaged in a 20-year “measured” war of attrition – allowing the Taliban to rebuild and return to power.  We were successful in ousting Saddam Hussein in Iraq but failed to maintain control of the transition.  Those situations were the result of incompetent policies coming from the White House under President George W. Bush, President Obama and President Biden. 

Just because a nation is ruled over by a dictator, it does not mean they do not have the support of the people – whether deserved or not.  That is the essential consideration when dealing with regime change.  And that is an important factor in nation building that would necessarily follow any regime change in places like Iran and Gaza.  That difference is seen in Iran and Gaza today.

Iran

Iran — at the time of this writing – is a prime candidate for regime change.  If that decision has been made between Israeli President Netanyahu and President Trump, it has not yet  been revealed – although the hints are everywhere.

Regime change in Iran is a golden opportunity because – if done right – it would have a profound fundamental impact on peace in the Middle East.  It would be a mortal blow to international terrorism.

Regime change in Iran would have the support of the majority of Iranians – 80 percent, according to experts. They would feel liberated and THAT is an important factor in any successful regime change.  We need to recall the cheering crowds when we “liberated” France in World War II.  We saw that when we “liberated” Iraq from the brutalism of Hussein (although we blew it in the follow up).   But even in Iraq, the aftermath was better than what we had before.

The only potential problem in the follow up in Iran is that that the 80 percent of those who oppose the religious zealots running things in Tehran have no clear leadership that can be immediately supported by Israel and the United States as future leaders.  The failure to impose the right leadership was what went wrong in Iraq.  Also, the 20 percent pro-regime faction is heavily armed and generally well organized.  Remaining elements of the military could fight back like the Taliban did in Afghanistan – and that could happen if we followed the same failed policy as we did in Afghanistan.

Regardless, the odds favor a successful regime change in Iran – and should be pursued at this time of unique opportunity.

Gaza

Gaza presents a much more complicated situation.  There, the Israeli mission IS regime change.  The war is not just to oust Hamas, but to destroy them like the vermin they are.

The big difference is the Palestinian people.  They have shown little signs of longing for “liberation” from the terrorist group, and especially not by Israel and the United States — both of which they see as the “little devil” and “big devil”.  They still chant “death to Israel” and “death to America”.  They still believe in the destruction of the Jewish state “from the river to the sea.”   They do not want to be occupied by either Israel or the United States – which would be a temporary necessity to oversee SUCCESSFUL regime change.  The idea of some sort of international consortium of nations to manage and monitor regime change in Gaza might be the better approach.

The people of Gaza initially elected Hamas as their leaders – contrary to the Palestinians in the West Bank, who were more wary of Hamas.  Until the ravages of war have been visited on the Palestinian people in Gaza, they have shown no resistance or opposition to Hamas leadership – and that has been minimal.  They publicly celebrated the savage October 7th attack on Israel.  They taunted, spat on, and threw rocks and bottles as the innocent hostages being paraded through the streets of Gaza. 

In many ways, it has been difficult to make distinctions between the innocent Palestinians and those actively engaging in the hostilities alongside the Hamas military.  Even children have been enlisted as fighters.  All that means that once Hamas is removed from leadership and eradicated – as it likely will be — there is no significant faction of the people that will feel “liberated”.  Rather, they will feel occupied.  The hatred they learned as children in school will resist any new government that will engage peacefully with Israel and recognize the right of the Jewish state to exist.

The “problem” with the Palestinians is well recognized in the rest of the Arab world.  Outside of Iran — and the now diminished Iran terrorist proxies – Gazans have no friends among Arab nations.   That is reflected in the fact that not a single Arab nation was willing to accept refugees from Gaza even as the war was raging.

The hatred that permeates the Gazan Palestinians will continue.  It is what has prevented any serious consideration of a “two state solution.”  That was once a prerequisite among Arab nations before engaging in peace agreements with Israel.  It was only removing the “two state solution” as a roadblock that enabled Trump to achieve the Abraham Accords.

Summary

So … now we have the prospect of two regime changes — one in Iran and one in Gaza.  Both are necessary to achieve an era of peace in the Middle East.  Taking out the ayatollah-led government in Tehran is the most likely to lead to success for all concerned. 

However, taking down Hamas in Gaza will not resolve the tension between the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and the state of Israel.  The difference in the regime changes is between the people of Iran, who yearn for “liberation” from their oppressive leaders, and the people of Gaza, who are deeply emotionally aligned to Hamas’ beliefs and goals.

The best way to achieve success in both cases is to use the American model for regime change.  Over many years, the American approach to regime change has had many more successes than failures. It is a model that turned vicious enemy nations into strong allies.

So, there ‘tis.