US President Donald Trump's latest threats to bomb Iran, prompted by the recent violent crackdown on unarmed demonstrators, reveal his enduring mindset of military might and regime change. This approach has been tried before with disastrous results in Ukraine and Venezuela, where US intervention only led to increased instability and resentment.
Trump craves a big bang β a spectacular demonstration of unmatched US power β rather than engaging in tough diplomatic negotiations or working through institutions. His administration's policy towards Iran is built on the flawed assumption that military force can deliver quick results and regime change without addressing the underlying causes of the country's problems.
The problem with this approach lies not only with Trump but also with his predecessor Barack Obama, who failed to develop a comprehensive strategy for dealing with Iran's nuclear program. The US has since pursued a policy of "deterrence" through missile strikes, which have little impact on Iranian politics and have even emboldened the regime.
The solution to the crisis in Iran lies not in bombing the country into submission but in using economic pressure, diplomatic engagement, and support for civil society organizations to bring about fundamental change. This approach would involve increased sanctions and tariffs, suspension of diplomatic contacts, and support for Iranian opposition groups.
Cyber operations, hybrid tactics, and other forms of non-military coercion could also be used to disrupt the regime's communication networks and economy. The US must also press its allies, including China, Russia, and North Korea, to use their influence to curtail trade and aid to Iran.
Ultimately, however, change will only come from within Iran itself. This requires a fundamental transformation of the country's governance system, which is based on an outdated and obscurantist interpretation of Islamic law. The US must support Iranian civil society organizations, independent media, and the rule of law in their efforts to promote democracy and human rights.
The task ahead will be difficult, but it cannot be achieved through military force alone. It requires sustained commitment from the international community, including the US, Europe, and other key players.
Trump craves a big bang β a spectacular demonstration of unmatched US power β rather than engaging in tough diplomatic negotiations or working through institutions. His administration's policy towards Iran is built on the flawed assumption that military force can deliver quick results and regime change without addressing the underlying causes of the country's problems.
The problem with this approach lies not only with Trump but also with his predecessor Barack Obama, who failed to develop a comprehensive strategy for dealing with Iran's nuclear program. The US has since pursued a policy of "deterrence" through missile strikes, which have little impact on Iranian politics and have even emboldened the regime.
The solution to the crisis in Iran lies not in bombing the country into submission but in using economic pressure, diplomatic engagement, and support for civil society organizations to bring about fundamental change. This approach would involve increased sanctions and tariffs, suspension of diplomatic contacts, and support for Iranian opposition groups.
Cyber operations, hybrid tactics, and other forms of non-military coercion could also be used to disrupt the regime's communication networks and economy. The US must also press its allies, including China, Russia, and North Korea, to use their influence to curtail trade and aid to Iran.
Ultimately, however, change will only come from within Iran itself. This requires a fundamental transformation of the country's governance system, which is based on an outdated and obscurantist interpretation of Islamic law. The US must support Iranian civil society organizations, independent media, and the rule of law in their efforts to promote democracy and human rights.
The task ahead will be difficult, but it cannot be achieved through military force alone. It requires sustained commitment from the international community, including the US, Europe, and other key players.