Winierski: Unpredictable risks with regime shifts in Iran

Suddenly it has appeared again, the concept Regime Change. It is usually a hateful thought for Donald Trump and Maga republicans. Their slogan « America First » means that the United States will act in its own interest and as little as possible get involved in distant conflicts.

Throughout his political career, Trump has insisted on the United States not devoting himself to setting aside and adding governments in other countries. His reluctance to start war or overthrowing regimes is not based on moral reasons or because it violates the UN Charter and international law.

Rather, it is the traces of US « eternal wars » that frightens. US invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were followed by bloody and costly wars that lasted for more than 20 years and eventually lost.

Much speaks for The fact that Netanyahus’s right -wing government has a greater purpose with the massive attack on Iran than to knock out the country’s opportunities to become the Middle East’s other nuclear power. Israel is the only one, but nothing is questioned.

In a TV speech on Friday night, the Israeli Prime Minister gave a clear hint that his goal is to remove the Ayatolor’s regime in Tehran. Netanyahu was aimed at the Iranian people:

– The goal is to destroy the nuclear and ballistic threat of the Iranian regime against us, and in this way also pave the way for you to achieve your freedom. The time is in for the Iranian people to (…) stand up for their freedom from the evil and oppressive regime.

It is in line with the fact that Netanyahus stated the ambition to transform the Middle East, in the wake of the successes against Tehran’s allies in Syria, Gaza and Lebanon, which have been partly achieved with Israeli fighter and robots.

Netanyahu said on Saturday that « we will hit every facility and goal at the Ayatollan regime ».

Trump had in the first place preferred a diplomatic settlement with Iran instead of a new war. He has even claimed that he advised Netanyahu from attacking Iran. But he didn’t bloc it. Once the attack was well, it was praised by Trump as « Excellent », although Foreign Minister Marco Rubio with Emphas claimed that the United States was not the least involved.

Those statements may be taken with a pinch of salt. The United States is already deeply involved in the war. Israel is provided with the most sophisticated bombs and fighting the Iranian robots and drones raining over Israel.

As a result, Netanyahu is closer to having its wish fulfilled: that the United States is drawn into a new war in the Middle East, together with Israel.

The answer to why he is entering a major war-preferably with active US participation-is wrapped in how the attack has been motivated. Israel has knocked out installations for uranium rioting and killed the highest officers of the army and the revolution garden and several leading nuclear weapons researchers. The purpose is stated to be to once and for all make it impossible for Iran to acquire nuclear weapons.

But most experts agree that aerial bombings that can mostly sink the Iranian nuclear weapons program for a few years.

From Israeli perspective In addition, the operation « Rising Lion » is not just about the threat from future Iranian nuclear weapons. Representatives of the Shiite regime in Tehran often speak of the state of Israel (« the Zionist entity ») being eradicated. These are not empty words. The Ayatolles are serious.

Therefore, removing this threat for good can only be achieved if the Islamist regime is removed.

The question then is whether Netanyahu has any prospects to succeed with one « Regime Change“In the regional superpower Iran, which has 90 million inhabitants.

Worth reminding is that Netanyahu was a supporter of the United States invading Iraq and overthrowing Saddam Hussein. He was Israel’s foreign minister when he appeared in the US Congress in September 2002 and explained:

– If you knock out Saddam and his regime, I guarantee that it will have tremendously positive consequences for the region.

In fact It quickly turned out that US attacks against Iraq were one of the most counterproductive foreign policy decisions in US history. The Iraqi state’s collapse gave room for the Islamic State terrorist group and it was Iran, not the United States that gained the greatest influence in Iraq.

Has Netanyahu learned from that homework or even considered all unpredictable risks with a regime change in Iran? Nobody knows what consequences it will have in a region that is already difficult religious and ethnically broken. And no one can know about the new rulers who come after the Ayatols’ regime does not get any worse.

Read more:

Nathan Shachar: The result of the attacks a disappointment for Iran’s regime