As I Predicted (Feared) in Iran
Back in the first heady days of the attacks on Iran I cautioned that it was relatively easy to kill a few leaders and bomb a bunch of stuff, but harder to understand how a liberal democracy was to magically eventuate in Iran. The US has a history of removing one bad leader and getting only something worse afterwards (remember Diem? Gaddafi?). One problem is that after 40 years of rule, the totalitarian government there is strong and deeply entrenched, and the opposition (while it certainly exists) does not seem to have leadership, plans, or coherent organization. Would killing Hitler in 1943 or Stalin in 1937 have incited a successful revolution? Almost certainly not -- not because they were loved but because their party's instruments of control were strong and the opposition was smashed flat.
The only vague hope I might have harbored was that the CIA had some secret plan in place with the opposition organized by agents on the ground. Really, this was an absurd hope, but I grew up in the 60's and the 70's when the CIA had a certain aura of competent deviousness. Intellectually, I disabused myself of this mythology years ago, but its remnants must have still been lurking around my brain.
For others who might be harboring such vague hopes of secret master spy plans, there is this:
Even a massive military assault on Iran is unlikely to topple the Islamic Republic of Iran and its state system, according to a classified assessment produced by the US intelligence community shortly before the US and Israel launched their current 'shock and awe-style' military campaign on Tehran. The Washington Post first reported it, perhaps based on some kind of leak or briefing by an anonymous intelligence official, and calls it—
a sobering assessment as the Trump administration raises the specter of an extended military campaign that officials sayhas "only just begun."
The report, compiled by the National Intelligence Council (NIC) roughly a week before the war began, concluded that Iran's political system is structured to survive even major leadership losses, The Washington Post reports. However, this should really come as no surprise to anyone awake and observant throughout the past two plus decades of America's 'nation building' efforts in the Middle East, from Afghanistan to Iraq to Libya. ...
The intelligence report also poured cold water on the idea that Iran's opposition could quickly fill any power vacuum. US intelligence analysts assessed that the country's fragmented opposition movements remain too divided to seize control, regardless of whether Washington pursued limited strikes against leadership targets or a broader assault on state institutions.
Equally unlikely, according to current and former US officials familiar with the analysis, is the prospect of a spontaneous nationwide uprising. We could speculate that this possibility may have had a chance of some degree of success within the opening one or two days of the mass US-Israel bombing campaign, but it clearly didn't materialize.
I will observe that no such promised revolution has occurred so far after the Maduro snatch. You can almost visualize the Administration look of confusion when the revolutions they were convinced would magically appear did not occur. Sort of like the look on the coyote's face when some trap he has created fails to work.
Postscript: I put all of the above in the "I wish I were wrong" category. Opponents of wars frequently fall into the trap of supporting the other side. The Iranian government is one of the worst in the world, both in how it treats its people (or at least the half without a Y chromosome) and its proclivity for inciting violence and mayhem in other countries. It is a totalitarian regime responsible for much of the current instability in the Middle East and I would love to wave my magic wand and see it gone.
"the CIA had some secret plan in place with the opposition organized by agents on the ground."
Years ago I read an explanation for the CIA's uselessness: no CIA officer would agree to duties in the sort of country where he might catch dysentery.
Otherwise, like you, I fear that this may be another Iraq/Afghanistan/Vietnam.
How to handle Iran is a massive catch 22.
There is no question that the current regime in Iran needs to be destroyed.
there is no question that Iran's nuclear program needs to be destroyed.
There is no question that Irans funding of hezbulah, Hamas, Houthi etc needs to be stopped
There is no question that appeasement such as Chamberlain's peace in our time or obama's JCPOA only encourages the bad actors.
Now the question arises - How does any of the above get accomplished. Warren makes good solid comments that highlights the problem of achieving those goals.
That being, I dont know the answer
I think you were right from the beginning. Americans often think that horrible, repressive regimes are just one person, but that one person couldn't stay in power without keeping the loyalty of the people with the guns. Any regime that lasts long enough to have a successor will have enough organization to choose a new successor, and won't be likely to change based on outside pressure.
Mark Bowden gave a good explanation of the phenomenon in Black Hawk Down - the clan isn't just the leader; it's resilient because it has depth. The leaders may not all agree, but elimination of one leader will result in a new leader of the same group, chosen by the same people who chose the old leader.
The best result we could hope for is to degrade the regime's capability to threaten us, its neighbors, and the wider world. Someday, they might choose leadership that would rather have a good life for its people than achieve martyrdom by fighting their enemies. But we can't do that for them.
"There is no question that appeasement such as Chamberlain's peace in our time"
But Chamberlain was clearly right.
"The only vague hope I might have harbored was that the CIA had some secret plan..."
So ... you think it's proper for the U.S. to forcefully intervene in other countries, as long as we can look down our noses at their form of governments? And you think that anything good can come from CIA meddling, when history shows that it is an instrument of chaos and destruction?
You are aware, I hope, that America has cozied and continues to cozy up to many countries with governments far more brutal than Iran's? Is it not clear that Iran's real sin is its refusal to be a U.S. puppet?
dearieme
"There is no question that appeasement such as Chamberlain's peace in our time"
But Chamberlain was clearly right.
Chamberlain was only partly correct. Chamberlain was working from a slight point of weakness, However, At least chamberlain went back to England and made an attempt to rebuilt the military.
Secondly, Chamberlain did not provide cash and war materials to Germany.
JCPOA & Obama, was working from a point of strength, yet not only went the appeasement route, he intended to facilitate Irans growth into a regional power, provided cash via the pallets, and facilitated Iran's nuclear program with the faux JCPOA.
One common theme is both Chamberlain and obama were widely praised for the appeasement, while individuals with a better understanding of the geopolitical consequences condemned both. Those condemning the peace in our time and the JCPOA have been proven to be correct.
Seems I got a down vote from someone that obviously fails to grasp the negative consequences of appeasement.
Peace in our time brought war in only 12 months
JCPOA brought funding of terrorist attacks in only a couple of months while only moving iran's nuclear program to a different location.
@Joe K
OK, so what should Chamberlain have done?
Dear mister appeasement ieme - Chamberlain should have stood up to hilter. Hitler was not ready to go to war in march 1938. Standing up to might have staved off 20m deaths in europe.
"Standing up" is just waffle. What should he actually have done?
Mr pro appeasement - Do you seriously need an answer to that question. 70+ years of hindsight and reflection should have provided you with some insight by now!
@Joe K You are defeated by a question on which actions he should have taken? Intellectual cowardice or historical ignorance - or perhaps both.
Dear Mr Appeasement -
In response to your question - I expect a higher level of understanding of the geopolitical consequences. The inane nature of your question reflects a very limited understanding. I would expect that you would have spend sometime grasping the range of possibilities and actions that could have been taken and thus reach a reasonable conclusion with out the need to for someone to spoon feed you an answer.
In other words - do your homework so that you understand the topic.
@Joe K.
You, Sir, are a coward.
Dear mr appeasement
How much brain power does it take to figure out what chamberlain should have done ?
Why throw insults when you lack the wisdom, knowledge to know the answer to an question that should be self evident?
Whatever the side effects of the destruction of the infrastructure of the Iranian regime may be, they are short term and should just be viewed as investments in a better future. The elimination of Iran as the center of world terrorism will mean the possibility of large reductions in defense spending by the United States and other nations.
We did this to Iran in 1988 and I thought it had a very salutary effect which was reinforced after Vincennes whacked a threat aircraft. We then declared a unilateral end to the killing. Regrettably the new boys in Iran got cocky with EFP IEDs in Iraq and other areas and they needed the application of stick again. We will see how well it works this time but I am tired of deluded idiots who think that anything less than peace and love is a total failure. I’d invite them to read actual history.
Reply to Mark - fwiw - my understanding is very little "infastructure " has been destroyed, at least in comparison to the damage of the regime leaders. Granted I could be wrong, but most of the damage has been to the structures where those leaders were when they were killed.
Granted, there is likely considerable graft in defense procrument, I dont think eliminating Iran as a threat, either short term or long term should have much effect on defense spending.