At the G7 in Canada, differences within Europe about the wisdom of regime change inIrancould not have been more stark.
The French president, Emmanuel Macron, warned against toppling a government “when you have no idea what comes next”. Insisting that he had no time for the Iranian government, Macron argued that it was for the people of Iran to choose their rulers.
“The biggest mistake today is to seek, through military means, to bring about regime change in Iran, because that will lead to chaos. Does anyone think that what was done in 2003 in Iraq [against Saddam Hussein] was a good idea? Does anyone think that what was done in Libya the following decade [the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi in 2011] was a good idea?”
Regime change with no plan is a strategic mistake, Macron said.
By contrast, Friedrich Merz, the German chancellor, said: “We are dealing with a terrorist regime both internally and externally. It would be good if this regime came to an end.”
He admitted: “Regime changes have not always led to the outcomes we desired, but we have positive examples. In Syria,the Assad regime was overthrownand since then there has been a new government trying to bring peace to the country.”
He omitted to mention the change of government in Damascus was preceded bynine years of bitter civil war– hardly a model of smooth democratic transition.
As Tony Blair was warned by Iraq experts in 2002 – but decided to ignore – the removal of a longstanding authoritarian government unleashes unpredictable suppressed forces.
At least in the run-up to the Iraq war, there were “day after” planning cells in both the US state department and the Foreign Office – only for the planning to be wrenched from the diplomats and handed to the Pentagon.
In the case of Iran – a country of vastly diverse ethnicities, religions, politics and incomes – no western planning for the aftermath of the regime’s possible collapse has been made. Balkanisation is a real possibility. Iran is not an artificial state drawn up by foreign office planners, but the fear of separatism stalks the leadership of a country in which Persians make up only 50% of the country. About a quarter are Azeri or Turkic people (including the supreme leader, Ali Khamenei), and there are Balochs, Kurds, Arabs, and smaller groups of Jews, Assyrians, and Armenians.
If implosion happened, the Baku regime in Azerbaijan and the many Kurdish militant movements might see a chance to carve out ethnic enclaves from Iranian territories. Indeed, the Jerusalem Post has urged Benjamin Netanyahu to make a federalised Iran a policy objective, on the basis Iran cannot be reformed.
Nor is there any internal organised government in waiting. Political parties are effectively banned, many of the best voices are either in jail, ageing, exiled, under house arrest or working in the margins as lawyers, artists or trade unionists. Revolts have been mercilessly repressed.
The 2022Women Life Freedom movementwas famed for its lack of leadership and left a cultural rather than institutional or leadership legacy. The subsequent implosion of the movement’s support network showed how quickly divisions can overtake a common cause.
Identifying a successor regime in Iran’s case would also depend on whether a revolution or a transition occurred. That will depend on who might take the blame for a military defeat – and how complete any defeat would be. At present there is a rallying round the flag effect, on which the government rides by emphasising the defence of Iran and not the Islamic Republic.
A revolution would probably see the collapse of Iran’s unique religious governing structure topped by the supreme leader, a clerical figure. If it was clear that the 86-year-old supreme leader was refusing all concessions on its nuclear program, and was seen to have lost touch with reality, he could be removed either from the streets or in a more orderly way by factions in the army.
It is true much of the key Revolutionary Guards leadership has been killed. But there may be junior officers, critical of regime corruption and Mossad penetration, who could lead an internal coup in part to forestall a full revolution. They might offer a more secular, non-ideological, insular – but no more liberal – regime. Such a regime would accept that Iran’s security strategy no longer relies on proxy armies across the Middle East. In other words, Iran would become a country, not a crusade.
It may also be true that inside the army – where the greatest knowledge about the true military balance of forces exists – some officers know that prolonging the war will cause avoidable destruction. During its war with Iraq, Iran sustained unfathomable losses among its ground troops, but this is an air war that it has already lost.
If implosion occurs, the person who would most like to return in triumph is Reza Pahlavi, the exiled son of Iran’s last monarch, Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who was overthrown during the 1979 revolution. The crown prince has name recognition and some older monarchists recall the Shah’s rule through rose-tinted glasses. He has been touring the US TV studios saying the regime is on the brink of collapse and offering himself as the figurehead of a democratic transition.
He sounded confident this week, saying that elements of the regime were already talking about defection: “We see a leader who is hiding in a bunker like a rat whilst many high elements are taking flight from Iran. I have stepped in to lead this campaign at the behest of my compatriots. I have a plan for Iran’s future and recovery.”
But there are doubts about his understanding of contemporary Iran, a country he left aged four. His close association with the Israeli government, and his near-celebratory messages at a time when innocent civilians were being killed and maimed byIsraelhas led to vitriolic criticism. The jailed human rights lawyer Nasrin Sotoudeh said: “We must defend Iran’s soil – not its rulers’ mistakes.”
Rumours have spread of an emergency government, with talk that two of Iran’s most sophisticated leaders, former president Hassan Rouhani and former foreign minister Javad Zarif could form a tandem – possibly alongside the former speaker of the parliament Ali Larijani.
Another signal of change would bethe release from house arrest of former president Mir Hossein Mousavi and his wife, Zahra Rahnavard, who have been under house arrest since 2011.
Rahnavard has attacked “the criminal hand and aggressive nature of Netanyahu, through blatant violation of all international norms”, but also said as “a patriotic woman, I warn the rulers not to allow the war to become protracted and consume the land and the people in flames”.
In the case of a full political collapse, Iran’s new leadership might emerge from among the political prisoners in Evin jail. In statements from the prison, Mostafa Tajzadeh, the political deputy for the interior ministry in the 1997-2005 Khatami administration, has frequently attacked the supreme leader for “closing his eyes to the disastrous [situation]”.
In the past few days he wrote: “I know that some segments of the people are happy with the [Israeli] attacks, because they see it as the only way to change the failed clerical government.”
He added: “But even assuming that the war leads to such an outcome, Iran will be left in ruins, where, most likely, statelessness and chaos will prevail – if the country is not torn apart.”
Tajzadeh added: “I believe that for a peaceful transition to democracy, we can insist on the formation of a Constituent Assembly to amend/change the constitution and force the government to establish it.”
The Coordinating Council of Iranian Teachers’ Trade Associations – another potential source of alternative authority – said: “We disavow any warmongering policy, whether by the Iranian government or by other regional governments, and declare that war is neither a blessing nor an opportunity, but rather a calamity.”
The anti-war message is also coming from women in Evin.
Anisha Asadollahi, Nahid Khodajoo, and Nasrin Khazrajavadi, in a joint letter this week said: “Neither the Iranian people nor other nations want war. Devastating and destructive wars imposed on government dragging the existence of thousands of defenceless people into decline by fuelling violence and conflict.”
Narges Mohammadi,the 2022 Nobel peace prize winner, has suffered for her opposition to the regime, but mocked Trump’s call for 10 million people to evacuate Tehran. She told the BBC: “I deeply believe that democracy, human rights, and freedom cannot come through violence and war.”
Ultimately if the structures of repression fray it will depend on the Iranians themselves. Many Iranians detest the regime – for a variety of reasons – but they equally detest what Israel is doing.
Iranians say they feel caught in a war that is not theirs, waiting for the deaths of those who brought them nothing but silence, torture, and poverty.
But Iranians also say they have seen what Israel has done to Gaza, and they do not want Tehran to become another Gaza.
There have already been enough images of fathers carrying bloodied babies through the rubble. Even now, as the regime totters, the uncertainty about what may come next may be its best chance of survival.