Don't fall for ‘regime change' myths — US power is a force for good
MAGA celebrity Charlie Kirk, attempting to balance support for the administration and appeal to online isolationists, maintains that the 'regime change war machine in DC' is pushing President Donald Trump into 'an all-out blitz on Iran.'
He's not alone.
The question is, what does 'regime change war' mean in simple language?
Does it mean, as 'non-interventionists' suggest, invading Iran and imposing American democracy on its people?
Because, if so, there's virtually no one pushing for that.
And I only add 'virtually' in case I somehow missed a person of consequence, though it is highly unlikely.
Trump, from all indications, is using the threat of the US joining the war to push Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei into surrender.
Though taking out Iran's nuclear program would end the war quicker.
Or does opposing 'regime change' mean actively thwarting the Iranian opposition from overthrowing the fundamentalists who took power via a violent revolution in 1979?
Does it mean ensuring that Khamenei survives, because a resulting messy post-war fight for power is worse?
It seems the latter. Kirk says, 'There is a vast difference between a popular revolution and foreign-imposed, abrupt, violent regime change.'
Surely, he doesn't believe the mullahs will gradually propose liberal reforms for the people and become peaceful neighbors on their own?
If Iranians revolt, it's because of the violence now being imposed on the regime.
The ideological overcorrection due to the failures of Iraq's rebuild now has non-interventionists accusing anyone who proposes that it's better if anti-American dictatorships fall of being 'neocons,' perhaps the most useless phrase in our political lexicon.
Forget for a moment that Iran has been an enemy of the United States for 45 years. Not an existential threat, no, but a deadly one, nonetheless.
The non-interventionist is not bothered by the Islamic Republic's murder of American citizens, or its crusade for nuclear weapons — until Khamenei drops Revolutionary Guard paratroopers into San Diego, they don't think it's any of our business.
Because of this overcorrection, non-interventionists, both left and right, simply can't fathom that exertion of American power could ever be a good thing.
They now create revisionist histories blaming the United States for virtually all the world's ills.
'It was Britain, and (funded by) the United States that overthrew a democratically elected Iranian Prime Minister Mossedegh in 1953 by using hired mobs in a coup that lead [sic] to the installation of the Shah Pahlavi's 27 year reign of authoritarianism and human rights abuses,' wrote Trump-supporting comedian Rob Schneider in a viral post. 'All in the name of Iranian Oil.'
'Remember,' Kirk told his followers, 'Iran is partially controlled by mullahs today because we designed regime change to put the shah back in power.'
Boy, I wish people would stay off Wikipedia for a while, because this fantasy, spread by blame-America leftists for decades, is now being picked up by the right.
The notion that Iran would have been a thriving democracy in 1954 had the US not gotten involved — and our involvement is way overstated — is more ridiculous than blaming us for the 1979 revolution nearly 30 years later.
It is far more likely Iran would have emerged as a Soviet client state, destined to fall anyway when fundamentalists swept the Islamic world in the 1970s.
Realpolitik is ugly. Non-interventionists love to harp on the deadly byproducts of our intrusions into world affairs — and there have been many — without ever grappling with the counterfactual outcome.
For instance, the contention that 'regime change' never works is incredibly simplistic.
Regime change was a success in Germany and Japan. And I bet the Hungarians, Czechs, Slovenians, Estonians and many others were all on board for regime change, as well.
None of that happens without US intervention in conflicts, cold and hot, around the world.
People will rightly point out that Europe is not the Middle East. In that regard, Iran is not Iraq or Syria.
Schneider contends that '90 million people will fight for their survival again,' as they did in Iraq.
Sure, some Iranians might fight to preserve the brutal Islamic regime.
Many would not.
The real fear should be that a civil war would break out if Iran's regime collapses.
There are numerous minorities in Iran, but Persian national consciousness goes back to antiquity.
If the mullahs fall, a majority of Iranians may turn out to fight for a better life free of needless conflicts with the West.
It may go south.
It may not.
I have no idea how that turns out, and neither do you.
Except for one thing: Whoever wins won't have nuclear weapons.
David Harsanyi is a senior writer at the Washington Examiner.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
15 minutes ago
- New York Times
Iran's Foreign Minister to Meet With European Counterparts Amid War Fears
Iran's foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, was scheduled to meet with top diplomats from Britain, France and Germany on Friday in Geneva, in a last-ditch effort to avert a dangerous escalation in the weeklong conflict between Israel and Iran. With President Trump setting a new deadline of two weeks before he decides whether to join Israel's aerial campaign against military and nuclear sites in Iran, the European diplomats will deliver an urgent message to Mr. Araghchi that his government must make significant concessions in its nuclear program. Expectations for the meeting were restrained, given the wide gaps between Iran and the United States in their now-suspended negotiations. Yet Mr. Trump's reprieve, after a week in which he seemed to be marching inexorably toward war, buoyed hopes somewhat, suggesting that there was still time to act. 'Based on the fact that there's a substantial chance of negotiations that may or may not take place with Iran in the near future,' the president said in a statement on Thursday, 'I will make my decision whether or not to go within the next two weeks.' Mr. Trump denied reports that he had already authorized an attack on Iran but withheld final approval to see if Iran's leaders acceded to his demand that they abandon the country's nuclear program. Among the issues on the table in Geneva, officials from several countries said, are giving outside inspectors unfettered access to Iran's nuclear facilities, as well as cutting its stockpile of ballistic missiles, which it has fired against Israel in retaliation for Israeli strikes on military bases and nuclear installations. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
New York Times
16 minutes ago
- New York Times
Live Updates: Europe Pushes Diplomacy as Trump Delays Iran War Decision
News Analysis 'I will make my decision whether or not to go within the next two weeks,'' Mr. Trump said in a statement on Thursday. President Trump's sudden announcement that he could take up to two weeks to decide whether to plunge the United States into the heart of the Israel-Iran conflict is being advertised by the White House as giving diplomacy one more chance to work. But it also opens a host of new military and covert options. Assuming he makes full use of it, Mr. Trump will now have time to determine whether six days of relentless bombing and killing by Israeli forces — which has taken out one of Iran's two biggest uranium enrichment centers, much of its missile fleet and its most senior officers and nuclear scientists — has changed minds in Tehran. The deal that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei rejected earlier this month, which would have cut off Iran's main pathway to a bomb by eventually ending enrichment on Iranian soil, may look very different now that one of its largest nuclear centers has been badly damaged and the president is openly considering dropping the world's largest conventional weapon on the second. Or, it may simply harden the Iranians' resolve not to give in. It is also possible, some experts noted, that Mr. Trump's announcement on Thursday was an effort to deceive the Iranians and get them to let their guard down. 'That could be cover for a decision to strike, immediately,' James G. Stavridis, a retired Navy admiral and the former supreme U.S. commander in Europe, said on CNN. 'Maybe this is a very clever ruse to lull the Iranians into a sense of complacency.' Even if there is no deception involved, by offering one more off-ramp to the Iranians, Mr. Trump will also be bolstering his own military options. Two weeks allows time for a second American aircraft carrier to get into place, giving U.S. forces a better chance to counter the inevitable Iranian retaliation, with whatever part of their missile fleet is still usable. It would give Israel more time to destroy the air defenses around the Fordo enrichment site and other nuclear targets, mitigating the risks to U.S. forces if Mr. Trump ultimately decided to attack. And it frees Mr. Trump from operating on a battlefield schedule driven by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel, who has been pressing Mr. Trump to enter the fray, with weaponry Israel does not possess. In fact, within an hour of the White House release of Mr. Trump's statement that 'I will make my decision whether or not to go within the next two weeks,' Mr. Netanyahu signaled that he was likely to use the time to try his own attacks on the deeply buried Fordo nuclear plant. 'I established that we will achieve all of our objectives, all of their nuclear facilities,' he said. 'We have the power to do so.' Image Smoke north of Tehran after Israeli airstrikes on Monday. Credit... Arash Khamooshi for The New York Times In fact, American and foreign experts say, the Israelis have been preparing military and covert options for years, examining how they might interrupt the massive electrical supply systems that keep the centrifuges buried in an enrichment hall under a mountain. Even the introduction of a surge or a pulse in that electrical flow could destabilize and destroy the delicate machines as they spin at supersonic speeds, like a top spinning out of control. In recent days, the International Atomic Energy Agency concluded that Israel's destruction of the electric plant above another enrichment center, at Natanz, probably critically damaged the thousands of centrifuges spinning below. The Israelis have considered what it would take to bomb and seal the tunnel entrances into the facility, trapping workers inside and making it all the more difficult to bring near-bomb-grade fuel into the plant for a final boost that would make it usable in a weapon. That fuel itself, stored in the ancient capital of Isfahan, would also be a target for the Israelis, American officials say. But the first question is whether the Iranians have the political flexibility to seize on the time period Mr. Trump has opened up. Administration officials say Steve Witkoff, the president's special envoy, has already been in touch in recent days with Abbas Araghchi, the Iranian foreign minister, with whom he has been talking since early April. 'I think the question is, can the Iranians see this as an opportunity to avoid the significant challenges that would come from the destruction of their last remaining facility?' asked Laura Holgate, who served as American ambassador to the I.A.E.A. during the Biden administration. But she said that 'direct surrender is probably not on the table for them,' or 'total abandonment of enrichment capacity either, even now.' Robert Litwak, a research professor at George Washington University who has written extensively on diplomacy with Iran, said, 'Here is the diplomatic needle both sides need to thread: The U.S. accepts that Iran has a right to enrich uranium, and Iran accepts that it must completely dismantle its nuclear program.' The conflict between Israel and Iran has consumed the president's week, as he returned early from the Group of 7 meeting in Canada to deal with the war. He spent the early part of the week posting a series of bellicose threats on social media, seeming to lay the groundwork for the United States to join Israel's bombing campaign. He urged all the residents of Tehran, a city of roughly 10 million people, to evacuate, said the United States had 'complete and total control of the skies over Iran,' and said American officials knew where Iran's leader was hiding but would not kill him — 'at least not for now.' Many of the president's allies believed that the United States' entrance into the war was imminent. But on Wednesday, the president said he had not made a final decision about whether to bomb Iran, and he berated Iran for not agreeing to a new deal to limit its nuclear program. Still, he said it was not too late for a diplomatic solution. 'Nothing's too late,' he said. Mr. Trump's public flirtation with entering the war has sharply divided his base — so much so that Vice President JD Vance wrote a lengthy social media post on Tuesday seeking to downplay concerns that the president was abandoning his commitment to keep America out of overseas conflict. 'I can assure you that he is only interested in using the American military to accomplish the American people's goals,' Mr. Vance wrote. But some of the president's most prominent allies, including Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, Republican from Georgia, Tucker Carlson and Stephen K. Bannon have criticized the prospect of the United States getting involved in another country's war. 'Anyone slobbering for the U.S. to become fully involved in the Israel/Iran war is not America First/MAGA,' Ms. Greene posted on social media. On the other end of the spectrum, many of Mr. Trump's hawkish allies in the Senate, including the Republicans Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and Tom Cotton of Arkansas, are urging the president to take a more aggressive posture toward Iran. 'Be all in, President Trump, in helping Israel eliminate the nuclear threat,' Mr. Graham said this week on Fox News. 'If we need to provide bombs to Israel, provide bombs. If we need to fly planes with Israel, do joint operations.' Eric Schmitt contributed reporting from Washington.
Yahoo
20 minutes ago
- Yahoo
US appeals court allows Trump control of National Guard in LA
A US appeals court on Thursday ruled that President Donald Trump could continue control of National Guard troops in Los Angeles, over the objections of California Governor Gavin Newsom. Trump ordered the deployment of thousands of National Guard troops and hundreds of Marines into Los Angeles this month in response to protests over federal immigration sweeps -- a move opposed by city leaders and Newsom. Trump was within his rights when he ordered 4,000 members of the National Guard into service for 60 days to "protect federal personnel performing federal functions and to protect federal property," the three-judge panel wrote in their 38-page unanimous ruling. "Affording appropriate deference to the President's determination, we conclude that he likely acted within his authority in federalizing the National Guard," they said The president celebrated the decision in a post on Truth Social Thursday night, calling it a "BIG WIN." "All over the United States, if our Cities, and our people, need protection, we are the ones to give it to them should State and Local Police be unable, for whatever reason, to get the job done," Trump wrote. - 'Not a king' - The state of California had argued that Trump's order was illegal because it did not follow the procedure of being issued through the governor. The judges said Trump's "failure to issue the federalization order directly 'through' the Governor of California does not limit his otherwise lawful authority to call up the National Guard." But they said the panel disagreed with the defendants' primary argument that the president's decision to federalize members of the California National Guard "is completely insulated from judicial review." Governor Newsom responded to the decision saying Trump "is not a king and not above the law." "Tonight, the court rightly rejected Trump's claim that he can do whatever he wants with the National Guard and not have to explain himself to a court," he posted on X. "We will not let this authoritarian use of military soldiers against citizens go unchecked." California is not without options. The state could request the case to be reheard or it could petition the Supreme Court for intervention. - Immigration tensions - The ruling comes against a backdrop of heightened tensions in Los Angeles, which has become ground zero of Trump's immigration crackdown across the United States. The city has seen scattered violence but mostly peaceful protests in recent weeks, ignited by an escalation in federal immigration sweeps that have targeted migrant workers in garment factories, car washes and other workplaces. Local media reported further raids across the city on Thursday targeting Home Depot stores, a home improvement retailer where day laborers often gather in parking lots seeking work. The protests, though largely peaceful, saw sporadic and spectacular violence. Damage included vandalism, looting, clashes with law enforcement and several torched driverless taxis. Last week, a lower court judge had ordered Trump to return control of the California National Guard to Newsom, saying the president's decision to deploy them to protest-hit Los Angeles was "illegal." Trump, who has repeatedly exaggerated the scale of the unrest, also sent 700 US Marines to Los Angeles despite the objections of local officials, claiming that they had lost control of the "burning" city. It was the first time since 1965 that a US president deployed the National Guard over the wishes of a state governor. Trump appointed two of the judges on the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit panel, and former president Joe Biden appointed the third, the New York Times reported Thursday. sla/tc/abs/tc/ecl
