Trump is rewriting the ‘you break it, you own it’ rule in Iran war

WASHINGTON— When President Trump announced he would lead the United States to war against Iran, he offered a long list of ambitious goals.

He said the operation aims not only to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons, but also to destroy Iran’s ballistic missiles and neutralize its proxies in the Middle East.

Then he added the most audacious goal: regime change.

“To the great, proud people of Iran… the hour of your freedom is drawing near,” he said. “Take over your government. It will be yours to take.”

It was a stunning turnaround for Trump, who campaigned for president in 2016 and promised: “We will stop the reckless and costly policy of regime change.”

But it is not clear that the president has a coherent plan to replace Iran’s radical Islamist autocracy with a friendlier regime. It is not clear that he is completely devoted to the goal.

At a White House event on Monday, Trump reiterated the military objectives of the operation but did not mention regime change; This showed that he might be having second thoughts. However, he described the current Iranian regime as “sick and sinister”.

Military experts and Iranian academics nearly agree that airstrikes alone, no matter how devastating, are unlikely to transform the Islamic republic into a peaceful, democratic country.

“Air power rarely leads to friendly regime change,” said Robert A. Pape, a leading air power researcher at the University of Chicago. “Bombing can destroy targets. It does not reliably reshape policy.”

Experts said a more likely outcome would be a seizure of power by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard, Iran’s militant Islamic security force. Washington Post reported that the CIA also made this assessment before the war started.

The Revolutionary Guard’s takeover would change the names of those responsible, but it would fall far short of real regime change.

Trump said he did not believe ground troops would be necessary, but did not exclude them. He did not propose a plan to remove Iran’s theocratic rulers from power beyond resuming airstrikes. The outcome on the field on Sunday depended on ordinary Iranians, he said.

“Be brave, be brave, be a hero and take back your country,” he said. Sunday video message. “America is with you. I made you a promise and I kept that promise. The rest is up to you, but we will be there to help.”

In an interview with the New York Times, he said he hoped the Revolutionary Guard would simply “surrender” to opposition forces, which it had brutalized just a month ago.

In fact, he supposedly leaves Pottery Barn rule – “If you break it, you own it” – was popularized by then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell before the Iraq war in 2003. Trump’s message to Iranians is: “I’ll break it, you own it.”

Iran’s democratic opposition is fragmented

Scholars say the main problem with Trump’s theory of apparent regime change is that the country’s democratic opposition is fragmented, even though the Revolutionary Guard and other security services are well organized and well-equipped.

“Even if the clerical regime falls, security forces are best positioned to replace it,” warned Richard N. Haass, a former senior State Department official under George W. Bush.

Meanwhile, he added: “The political opposition is not united and is not functioning as a government-in-waiting. It is not in a position to agree to leave.” [from the regime]It provides much less security.”

Some experts argue there is more the administration could do to improve the likelihood of regime change without sending troops to the region.

Haass accused the Trump administration of not working more closely with the Iranian opposition to prepare them for its role in a potential future government.

Others said the United States should now make clear that it will provide significant economic assistance to the new Iranian regime, but only if its behavior is in good faith. Iran’s economic crisis, the worst in recent history, helped fuel a popular uprising in January that the regime suppressed at the cost of thousands of lives.

“There are more steps the administration can take now to help the democratic opposition,” said Kelly Shannon, a visiting scholar at George Washington University. “Close coordination with dissidents on the ground. Protection from security forces in case they open fire. Money, including general strike fund support. Help ensuring internet access for all Iranians. And make sure airstrikes do not hit Evin Prison or other prisons where dissidents are held; there are many potential opposition leaders there.”

Future scenarios

Iranian experts have described many different scenarios for the regime that could emerge if the Revolutionary Guard remains intact.

One of these could be called the Venezuela scenario: an Iran led by officers from the current regime who agree to some degree of cooperation with the United States. This would be similar to the situation in Venezuela, where the United States captured President Nicolás Maduro but left the rest of his regime in power.

Trump has already endorsed this quick-fix scenario and said he is willing to begin talks with the newly appointed successors of Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, who was killed in an Israeli airstrike. “What we did in Venezuela, I think, is a perfect, perfect scenario,” he told the New York Times.

Another option could be called the Hamas scenario: A battered and weakened Islamic Republic could remain in power but remain hostile to the United States even after losing much of its military infrastructure.

The third possibility could be the Libya scenario: an Iran in which the regime is overthrown and many groups fight for power. That’s what happened in Libya after the United States and other countries used air power to help topple long-time dictator Muammar Gadafi.

But neither of these scenarios will be the transition to democracy that many Iranians hope for, a more positive version of regime change.

Trump’s search for a ramp

Meanwhile, Trump already appears to be looking for an opportunity to declare victory and retreat.

In an interview with Axios on Saturday, he said he believed he had several “outings” from the war.

“I could go for a long time and take over the whole thing – or I could finish it in two or three days and say to the Iranians, ‘See you again in a few years.'”

“He seems to be looking for another opponent,” Haass said. “He could say, ‘It’s up to the Iranian people,’ and leave the opposition to its fate… He could claim victory in destroying – or, I suppose, ‘re-destroying’ – Iran’s nuclear program and downgrading its ballistic missiles.”

“But in this scenario, he would still face some danger. If there was a physical confrontation, he would still face some danger.” [between the regime and the opposition]The opposition could have been killed in much larger numbers earlier. … By presenting regime change as one of the causes of war, we not only fail to create regime change; “We may see a second massacre.”