The dangerous American fantasy of regime change in Iran
A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr.
Enter Email
Sign Up
Senior officials quickly tried to walk back Trump's threat. 'We don't want a regime change,' Vice President JD Vance said. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth insisted that bombing Iran 'was not and has not been about regime change.'
Advertisement
The White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, however, further muddied the waters by suggesting that Iranians might 'rise up against this brutal terrorist regime' if it doesn't compromise with its enemies. 'If the Iranian regime refuses to come to a peaceful diplomatic solution — which the president is still interested and engaging in, by the way — why shouldn't the Iranian people take away the power of this incredibly violent regime that has been suppressing them for years?'
Advertisement
It was an odd formulation, since history shows no example of a people who rebelled because their leaders refused to pursue diplomacy. In any case Leavitt's boss quickly contradicted her — and himself. When a reporter asked President Trump if he was truly seeking regime change in Iran, he replied 'No' and added: 'Regime change takes chaos, and ideally, we don't want to see so much chaos.'
Mr. President: Congratulations on recognizing that essential truth. Please don't change your mind again. Iranians want a better government, but they want to shape it themselves. Regime change from within can bring new stability. Bombing cannot.
Iranians have plenty of reasons to complain. Since 1979 they have been under the misrule of a repressive and corrupt clerical regime. It imposes a harsh code of conduct and dress on women and imprisons those who speak out for freedom. Great national challenges, from economic diversification to water supply, go unaddressed.
Iranians, however, know perhaps better than any other people on earth that no matter how bad a regime is, the next one could be worse. The mullahs came to power in 1979 after Mohammad Reza Shah was overthrown. The coalition that swept the shah out was wildly diverse, from religious fanatics to Communists to liberal-minded democrats. No one knew what the post-shah regime would be, but all agreed that whatever emerged would be an improvement. They were wrong. Instead of going from bad to good, conditions went from bad to worse. If the mullahs are deposed, that could happen again.
Many Iranians don't want to take that chance. Their own neighborhood provides sobering examples of the devastation that American-sponsored regime change can bring. Syria, Iraq, and Libya were all stable countries under dictatorship. People were able to live normal lives as long as they did not criticize the government. Anyone could walk the streets safely or sit in a cafe without worrying that a terror bomb might explode.
Advertisement
After American power led to the fall of the Syrian, Iraqi, and Libyan leaders, democracy did not emerge. Syria is ruled by a former terrorist for whose arrest the United States once offered a $1 million bounty. Iraq is factionalized and dysfunctional. Libya is a failed state and breeding ground for terror.
Iranians have painful collective memories of foreign intervention. During the 19th and early 20th centuries, Russia and Britain effectively controlled Iran. They seized Iran's territories in what are now Azerbaijan and Afghanistan. Britain imposed an accord that gave it ownership of Iran's vast oil reserves. When democracy finally emerged in the 1950s and Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh nationalized the oil industry, the United States and Britain organized a coup to depose him. That led to 25 years of royal dictatorship followed by more than 40 years under the mullahs.
Many in Iran share two basic convictions: The regime is bad, but foreign powers should not try to overthrow it. That is not a contradiction. Political change that comes after bombing or invasion is usually for the worse. If it comes from within — if Iranians rather than outsiders shape Iran's fate — it will be more authentic, profound, and long-lasting.
Stephen Kinzer is a senior fellow at the Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs at Brown University.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
San Francisco Chronicle
28 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Daughter of assassinated civil rights leader sees painful echoes of political violence in America
Jackson, Miss. (AP) — More than 60 years after a white supremacist assassinated civil rights leader Medgar Evers, his daughter still sees the same strain of political violence at work in American society. 'It's painful,' said Reena Evers-Everette. 'It's very painful.' Evers-Everette was 8 years old when her father, a field secretary for the NAACP, was shot to death in the driveway of his home in Jackson, Mississippi. A few months after Evers' killing in 1963, President John F. Kennedy was gunned down. The deaths of civil rights leaders Martin Luther King Jr. and Malcolm X, and U.S. Sen. Robert F. Kennedy followed later that decade. Now, experts say the level of political violence in America over the past few years is likely the highest it's been since the 1960s and 1970s. The past year alone has seen the assassination of a Minnesota state lawmaker and her husband, the killing of two Israeli Embassy staffers, and two assassination attempts on then-presidential candidate Donald Trump. At a four-day conference celebrating Evers' life just before what would have been his 100th birthday on July 2, his daughter was joined by the daughters of slain civil rights leaders: Kerry Kennedy, the daughter of Robert F. Kennedy, and Bettie Dahmer, the daughter of civil and voting rights activist Vernon Dahmer. The 2025 Democracy in Action Convening, 'Medgar Evers at 100: a Legacy of Justice, a Future of Change,' was held in Jackson. 'I just was feeling so much pain, and I didn't want anyone else to have to go through that,' Kennedy said, recalling that after her father died, she prayed for the man who killed him. 'I was saying, 'Please don't — please don't kill the guy that killed him.'' Two-time Georgia gubernatorial candidate and voting rights activist Stacey Abrams spoke at the event, denouncing efforts by the Trump administration to strip the names of activists from Navy vessels, including possibly Evers. 'They want to take his name off a boat because they don't want us to have a reminder of how far he sailed us forward,' Abrams told the conference crowd. U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has undertaken an effort to change the names of ships and military bases that were given by President Joe Biden's Democratic administration, which often honored service members who were women, people of color, or from the LGBTQ+ community. Abrams drew parallels between acts of radical political violence and the Trump administration's use of military resources against protesters in Los Angeles who were demonstrating against immigration enforcement actions. 'Unfortunately, we cannot decry political violence and then sanction the sending of the Marines and the National Guard to stop protesters and not believe that that conflicting message doesn't communicate itself,' Abrams told The Associated Press. 'What I want us to remember is that whether it is Medgar Evers or Melissa Hortman, no one who is willing to speak for the people should have their lives cut short because of what they say.'
Business Upturn
41 minutes ago
- Business Upturn
Iran prepared to mine Strait of Hormuz last month amid Israel tensions, say US sources: Report
By Aditya Bhagchandani Published on July 2, 2025, 09:35 IST Iran's military loaded naval mines onto vessels in the Persian Gulf last month, raising concerns within Washington that Tehran was preparing to blockade the Strait of Hormuz following Israeli strikes on Iranian sites, Reuters reported on Wednesday, citing two US officials familiar with the matter. The mine-loading activity, which had not been publicly disclosed earlier, took place shortly after Israel launched a missile attack on Iran on June 13. The US officials, speaking on condition of anonymity due to the sensitive nature of the intelligence, stated that the mines have not been deployed but their movement indicates serious Iranian consideration of blocking the strategic waterway. The Strait of Hormuz is one of the world's most vital shipping lanes, with nearly 20% of global oil and gas shipments passing through it. Any disruption could have sent global energy prices soaring. However, oil prices have fallen by more than 10% since US airstrikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, largely due to relief that shipping through the strait has remained unaffected. Following US airstrikes on June 22 that targeted three key Iranian nuclear sites, Iran's parliament reportedly supported a non-binding resolution to close the strait. However, the final decision rests with Iran's Supreme National Security Council, as noted by Iran's Press TV. Historically, Iran has threatened to block the Strait of Hormuz during periods of heightened geopolitical tension but has never acted on those threats. Reuters reported that it remains unclear whether the mines remain aboard the Iranian vessels or if they have since been removed. US intelligence gathering on the matter likely involved satellite imagery, human intelligence, or a combination of both, the sources added. Ahmedabad Plane Crash Aditya Bhagchandani serves as the Senior Editor and Writer at Business Upturn, where he leads coverage across the Business, Finance, Corporate, and Stock Market segments. With a keen eye for detail and a commitment to journalistic integrity, he not only contributes insightful articles but also oversees editorial direction for the reporting team.
44 minutes ago
Trump says the GOP mega bill will eliminate taxes on Social Security. It does not.
WASHINGTON -- President Donald Trump keeps saying that Republicans' mega tax and spending cut legislation will eliminate taxes on federal Social Security benefits. It does not. At best, Trump's 'no tax on Social Security' claim exaggerates the benefits to seniors if either the House or Senate-passed proposals is signed into law. Here's a look at Trump's recent statements, and what the proposals would — or would not — do. Trump repeatedly told voters during his 2024 campaign that he would eliminate taxes on Social Security. As his massive legislative package has moved through Congress, the Republican president has claimed that's what the bill would do. Trump said on a recent appearance on Fox News' 'Sunday Morning Futures" that the bill includes 'no tax on tips, no tax on Social Security, no tax on overtime.' But instead of eliminating the tax, the Senate and House have each passed their own versions of a temporary tax deduction for seniors aged 65 and over, which applies to all income — not just Social Security. And it turns out not all Social Security beneficiaries will be able to claim the deduction. Those who won't be able to do so include the lowest-income seniors who already don't pay taxes on Social Security, those who choose to claim their benefits before they reach age 65 and those above a defined income threshold. The Senate proposal includes a temporary $6,000 deduction for seniors over the age of 65, contrasted with the House proposal, which includes a temporary deduction of $4,000. The Senate proposal approved Tuesday would eliminate Social Security tax liability for seniors with adjusted gross incomes of $75,000 or less or $150,000 if filing as a married couple. If passed into law, the tax deduction would last four years, from 2025 to 2029. The deductions phase out as income increases. Touting a new Council of Economic Advisers analysis, the White House said Tuesday that '88% of all seniors who receive Social Security — will pay NO TAX on their Social Security benefits," going on to say that the Senate proposal's $6,000 senior deduction 'is estimated to benefit 33.9 million seniors, including seniors not claiming Social Security. The deduction yields an average increase in after-tax income of $670 per senior who benefits from it.' Garrett Watson, director of policy analysis at the Tax Foundation think tank, said conflating the tax deduction with a claim that there will be no tax on Social Security could end up confusing and angering a lot of seniors who will expect to not pay taxes on their Social Security benefits. 'While the deduction does provide some relief for seniors, it's far from completely repealing the tax on their benefits,' Watson said. The cost of actually eliminating the tax on Social Security would have massive impacts on the economy. University of Pennsylvania's Penn Wharton Budget Model estimates that eliminating income taxes on Social Security benefits 'would reduce revenues by $1.5 trillion over 10 years and increase federal debt by 7 percent by 2054" and speed up the projected depletion date of the Social Security Trust Fund from 2034 to 2032. Discussions over taxes on Social Security are just part of the overall bill, which is estimated in its Senate version to increase federal deficits over the next 10 years by nearly $3.3 trillion from 2025 to 2034, according to the Congressional Budget Office. Administration officials have said the cost of the tax bill would be offset by tariff income. Recently, the CBO separately estimated that Trump's sweeping tariff plan would cut deficits by $2.8 trillion over a 10-year period while shrinking the economy, raising the inflation rate and reducing the purchasing power of households overall.
