One can only hope the United States and Israel can defeat the current Iranian regime and replace it with a more humane and democratic government. But the United States has an ineffective and counterproductive record of regime change in Iran. Moreover, President Trump’s failure to seek and win congressional approval to attack Iran strengthens the precedent of presidential war-making without congressional approval—a precedent which may be exploited by a future president whose strategy, tactics, and goals may be radically different from what most Americans may want.
There’s no doubt about it: The current Iranian Islamofascist regime, which the United States and Israel seek to destroy and replace, has no discernible redeeming features. It is cruel, repressive, and incompetent. It has slaughtered thousands protesting its inept policies, which have destroyed its economy. Its elimination may well reduce the sum total of evil in the world. Maybe.
But while the current regime has waged a reign of terror against not only its own people but against Israel and moderate Arab regimes as well, it’s possible that its replacement may prove to be worse, especially given America’s sorry record of meddling with Iranian politics, which helped provoke the rise of Iranian Islamofascism in the first place.
In 1953 America’s CIA collaborated with British intelligence agencies to overthrow the democratically elected prime minister of Iran, the secular leftist (but noncommunist) Mohammad Mossadegh. Mossadegh had implemented measures to promote social security, land reforms, and progressive taxation. But he ran afoul of the British and American governments when he attempted to nationalize the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. The CIA fomented anti-Mossadegh violence with paid protesters, bribed high-ranking military leaders to oppose him, and, in essence, made Iran ungovernable until Mossadegh surrendered. He was kept under house arrest until his death in 1967, while the Shah’s position was strengthened. Although the Ayatollah Khomeini and his Islamofascist movement would not have approved of Mossadegh’s secular orientation, they nonetheless cited the anti-Mossadegh coup as a reason for their anti-American hatred and adopted Mossadegh as a symbol of their 1979 revolution.
So much for American-sponsored regime change.
President Trump has called on the Iranian people to overthrow the current regime under attack. Whether that can be done remains unclear at this time. The initial air attacks have killed the Ayatollah Khamenei, several of his top advisers, and possibly even his son, who may otherwise have become his designated successor. But other advisers, as well as leaders of the clergy, the armed forces, and the national security bureaucracies, still survive and are directing resistance to our attack. However unpopular the current regime may be with the public, which it has enthusiastically slaughtered, it nonetheless may still retain sufficient control over the means of oppression to resist and defeat public attempts at its destruction. In short, it may be down, but not yet out. There may well be more state-sponsored slaughter of the public before the latest war ends.
And even if a popular uprising could topple the regime, it does not necessarily follow that the new government would be pro-American or democratic. Would its supporters be grateful to the United States for ridding it of Khamenei and his top henchmen? Or would it be resentful of American interference? One of the most important lessons to be learned from our attempts at regime change in Iraq and Afghanistan is that America cannot simply impose Western democratic values and practices on a country where such values and practices have been in short supply to begin with.
But whether President Trump’s attempt at Iranian regime change succeeds or fails, one should be concerned with the impact his actions will have on the powers of the American presidency. The Constitution requires congressional approval for presidential war-making. President Trump is by no means the first president to act without seeking prior constitutional approval. But in ordering the attack without congressional approval, he has strengthened the dangerous precedent set by those among his predecessors who, like him, chose to circumvent Congress before making war. Future presidents may use his actions to justify their own wars to achieve their own goals, whatever they may be, whether the public or its democratically elected senators and representatives like it or not. Do Democrats want to strengthen the war-making powers of a President Vance or a President Rubin? Do Republicans want to allow a President Newsom, or Pritzker, or AOC the same powers now being exercised by President Trump?
President Trump should seek congressional approval before he continues his war, and should he win it, he—and all of America—should prepare for a long, hard slog toward a destination we’re not guaranteed to reach.
Malcolm L. Cross has lived in Stephenville since 1987 and taught politics and government at Tarleton for 36 years, retiring in 2023. His political and civic activities include service on the Stephenville City Council (2000-2014) and on the Erath County Republican Executive Committee (1990-2024). He was Mayor pro-tem of Stephenville from 2008 to 2014. He has served on the Board of Directors of the Stephenville
Economic Development Authority since 2018, and as chair of the Erath County Appraisal District’s Appraisal Review Board since 2015. He is also a member of the Stephenville Rotary Club, the Board of Vestry of St. Luke’s Episcopal Church, and the Executive Committee of the Boy Scouts’ Pecan Valley District. Views expressed in this column are his and do not reflect those of The Flash as a whole.
Be the first to comment