MARK LEVIN: Iran postwar planning risks disaster without US involvement

What will the Iranian government look like after this military conflict? This question is asked in the media. And we are told that this could be a disaster, depending on who or what replaces the current Islamic dictatorship.

This is interesting.

So I’ll answer this seemingly complex question: We have no idea what it will look like. How can we know this, since we actually have no desire to be involved in any post-war “democracy project”?

We declared to the Iranian people that once most of the hostilities ended, it was up to them to overthrow the government. And logically it will be up to them to decide what will replace it; especially if we have no intention of being involved in a post-war project.

Of course, hostility towards “democracy projects” stems largely from our experience in Iraq; here the word “democracy” was constantly used as a justification for engaging in war. It did not turn out well and we suffered serious losses.

The question before us is not what a post-war Iran will look like, but whether it is in our interest to participate in shaping that outcome for various reasons; If so, to what extent and in what way.

However, each case is unique. Not all of the conflict stems from Iraq. We played an important role in establishing governments in Japan and Western Europe after World War II. We followed the Marshall Plan in Europe and this effort was successful.

But if the question is to be asked about post-war Iran – if we have no intention of playing a role in the formation of a new government, even if there are consequences for not intervening – then the question is either not serious or unknowable. Most people who ask this do so out of concern for what might happen.

AMERICA IS STRIKING IRAN AGAIN – DID WASHINGTON PLAN WHAT TO HAPPEN NEXT?

The more important question, it seems to me, is whether we can play any role in post-war Iran, especially if the nature of the new government will have serious consequences. Clearly it is. I am not advocating a “democracy project,” but I am suggesting that an interventionist approach can be problematic, if not disastrous.

So the question before us is not what a post-war Iran will look like, but whether it is in our interest to participate in shaping that outcome for a variety of reasons; If so, to what extent and in what way.

The truth is that if we intervene fully, we run the risk of reintroducing the regime we destroyed. There will undoubtedly be remnants of the current regime or a sizeable population determined to sabotage the establishment of a government that is neither democratic nor authoritarian. If they are not disarmed, they may succeed in the power struggle for control.

CLICK FOR OTHER OPINIONS OF FOX NEWS

Moreover, let’s not pretend that China, Russia, Türkiye and perhaps others will not see our absence as an opportunity to influence or impose on Iran. In short, doing nothing would be a potentially dangerous and serious mistake.

I’m concerned that not enough thought has been given to this issue, especially when we’re leaving it entirely to others. This does not mean that we should send troops to impose democracy on the country. But there are other options well below that.

CLICK TO DOWNLOAD FOX NEWS APPLICATION

I repeat, Iran is not Iraq. The Iranian people share many, if not most, of our Western values. Persian culture has been among the most advanced of all civilizations. Its roots are ancient and its history is marked by achievements in the fields of education, science and art.

Of course, the urgent issue before us is the complete defeat of the regime that usurped the Iranian government, enslaved its people, and threatened the existence of our country and the world for nearly half a century. But we can walk and chew gum at the same time. The nature of the Iranian government after the war is a very important issue for both the Iranian people and our country, so that the war we are fighting today does not go in vain.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE FROM MARK LEVIN