Iranian Regime Change: Not That Important

In the recent week or so, one has not been able to turn on the news without seeing grainy, turbulent cell-phone video depicting the protests in Iran regarding the obviously fraudulent election there. Despite many polls showing a tie in the race and even some in favor of moderate candidate Mir-Hossein Mousavi, incumbent Mahmoud Ahmidinejad was announced the winner of the election, by a questionable margin of 62.6% of the popular vote. This sparked nearly immediate protest from moderates, unfortunately culminating in violence in the capital city of Tehran and generating international response.

As a symbol of democracy across the world, it is clearly the obligation of America to stand for justice in the democratic process and condemn this national hoodwinking of the Iranian people, but then one must beg the question; namely, how important is the defeat of Ahmidinejad to American interests? The answer, surprisingly, is not very much.

The greatest concern to America right now coming from Iran is the nuclear threat. Iran’s reasons for the program are obvious; a country that literally sits on a sea of oil has no need of uranium for energy. This, combined with their threats towards Israel, our nation’s great ally in the Middle East, makes the prevention of Iranian bomb possession a key element of American interest. Our second concern has thankfully been minimized, but remains a grave threat: Iran is suspected of ( and in some cases proven to) giving arms, both physical and financial, to terrorist cells in Iraq and Afghanistan, waging a shadow war against U.S troops. As stated before, vast improvements in ground conditions in Iraq has lowered this fear on that front, but certain upheavals in Afghanistan provide a new opportunity for Iran to provide money for a common interest.

Oddly enough, the powers of nuclear determination and international financing do not fall within the president of Iran’s power at all. It is important to remember that Iran is an “Islamic Republic”, or a thinly-veiled theocracy. Major decisions of foreign policy therefore rest with the clerics of Iran and, ultimately, the Ayatollah himself. Being that these figures control the programs that provide the greatest threat to American security, a regime change in the presidency would have little effect on the country’s threat to the United States. A new president, however, would possibly improve relations with our country slightly, by perhaps being more open to talks with President Obama on certain issues. However, it is unlikely that they will succeed in the long run to disarm Iran.

What does this mean to you and me, then? In short, don’t hold your breath. Even if international pressure causes an Iranian recount assuring a Mousavi victory, it is likely Iran will remain a grave threat to the United States. In the meantime, we must stand firm as a country in support of democracy, and while for now diplomacy is the way to deal with Iran, it must be tough (but fair) diplomacy.

5 thoughts on “Iranian Regime Change: Not That Important”

Good post, Mr. Bonica, you bring up very good points. However, while you point out that Ahmidinejad is not necessarily where the buck stops, would the regime change still not be a monumental blow to extremist Islam and its followers across the globe? To widely reassert the fact that Islamo-fascism will not be tolerated by practicing Muslims and that the people are ready to stand up against it? I think that the dramatic downfall of the face of Islamist extremism right now (Mahmoud) could be the ignition for a movement that would gradually make this type of extremism a thing of the past; similar to the fall of communism. Just a thought

Your thought is a very good one, Oliver, and in a best-case scenario, it is certainly possible. However, the people of the Middle East know better than we do who has the final word in Iran. While there would be some celebration, they will know that to defeat extremism, the mullahs themselves would have to face defeat. It would be comparable to David slaying Goliath, only to find Goliath’s older and much larger brother standing behind him. They will know that real progress is only made if the Ayatollah himself is either moderated or somehow deposed. That would certainly set off the type of movement you describe, and while maybe the defeat of Ahmidinejad has some potential to have similar results, it wont be as much so.

Oliver you have to also consider the multiplicity of “extremisms” that exist in the Middle East. Yes, communism also came in many forms, but it was much more of a unified ideology than the different forms of authoritarianism/statism/monarchy that exists in the region. Again, I would say that a rejection of Ahmadinejad’s authoritarianism (if that is what these protests really represent) does not represent an endorsement of any other form of governance and should not necessarily be interpreted as a general ideological rejection of his form of governance.