Simple but Not Easy #8
Regime change in Iran; governance in Gaza
"Israel and Iran both have little incentive to stop and no obvious route to outright victory," writes The New York Times. "Much depends on President Trump." That should make no one feel better. This self-described 'dealmaker' was out-negotiated by the Chinese in 2017; the Taliban in 2020; and the Kremlin this year.
A strong president would be leading the free world. As with all crises, this one presents an opportunity. A strong leader would steer the conflict towards regime change in Iran and a change in Israel’s posture towards governance in Gaza. These two changes would unlock the Abraham Accords, which could knit together the Middle East through commerce and culture.
Immediately, America should support the Iranian people to empower them against the Ayatollah:
directly address the Iranian people and broadcast the regime’s crimes against its own citizens.
deploy tools for freedom in Internet communications to help opposition organize.
target the regime's cyber infrastructure for repression and censorship.
broadly engage civil and labor leaders with financial and intelligence support.
establish an elite defection program to undermine the regime’s remaining hierarchy.
toughen sanctions on both the elites and the oil industry.
Only the Iranian people can decide to seize this moment for freedom. They should determine their own governance. They must know America is an ally in that aim.
Israel also needs and deserves a strong ally. Iran started this war, and Israel seeks to end it. Decades ago, the Islamic Republic began funding proxy terrorists in Lebanon, Gaza, Syria, Yemen, and Iraq. Then, last year, it directly attacked Israel. Now, it is closer than ever before to a nuclear warhead. Israel is acting in self-defense. As before, America should support Israeli self-defense through Iron Dome and ballistic missile interceptors.
Israel wants more than Iron Dome, though. It wants American bunker-busting bombs. Although Israel has gained freedom of the skies over Iran, it has not been able to destroy its nuclear facilities deep underground. If the war concludes with Iranian enrichment and weaponization capability preserved, the prime minister may struggle to sell it as a victory.
A strong American president would get tough on the prime minister. A deal: the bunker-busters in exchange for a commitment to work with the PA – or an updated version of a Palestinian polity – on governance in Gaza. Israel would stop destabilizing the West Bank and instead negotiate with non-Hamas Palestinians to ensure security coordination and humanitarian aid flow in Gaza. The PA, in exchange, would need to improve its corruption and competence. In addition to improving conditions for Gazans and further isolating Hamas, this development would also renew Saudi Arabia’s interest in joining the Abraham Accords.
The Accords are nascent and fragile, but they are a path to peace in the Middle East. The conflict between Israel and Iran is a chance to remove the obstacles in that path by their root. Tighten the screws on a weak Islamic Republic by supporting its opposition and destroying its nuclear facilities. Expand the window for peacemaking in Gaza by helping Israel defeat the bigger threat behind Hamas.
The problem is that we don't have a strong American president. Do we need more proof that his deal-making prowess is pure bunk? He's up against leaders who can run circles around him. Netanyahu knew that when he made the unilateral decision to attack Iran. Trump's advocacy for Russia at the G-7 meeting is yet another indication that he is in Putin's thrall. As Zelensky plainly stated, when you tell Trump something you are also talking to Putin. Moreover, as Heather Cox Richardson says so eloquently in her piece today, the wheels are starting to come off the Trump presidency. It is increasingly clear that people like Miller and Vought are pulling Trump's strings. For a cinematic reference see "Weekend at Bernie's".
In 1953 the CIA overthrew the democratically elected President of Iran and installed our ally, the Shah of Iran. That led directly to the Iranian revolution where the mullah's took control.
We should not encourage regime change again in Iran; let the Iranians sort it out. It seems that every time we change governments, in Guatemala, Chile, Argentina, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan, it all ends badly.