THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Volume IX, Issue # 79, May 4, 2007
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor
Government Committed to & Acting in Accord with Conservative Principles
Ensures a Nation's Strength, Progress, & Prosperity
SHOULD REGIME CHANGE BE PART OF U.S. FOREIGN POLICY?
ONLINE DEBATE
Discussants: Robert S. Litwak & Michael Rubin
IRAN, THE IRANIAN NUCLEAR PROGRAM, & UNITED STATES FOREIGN POLICY: THE GROWING DEBATE OVER
WHETHER THE U.S.A. SHOULD PURSUE A POLICY OF FORCIBLE REGIME CHANGE IN IRAN -- THE RISKS & CONSEQUENCES OF
U.S. MILITARY ACTION TO ACCOMPLISH IRANIAN REGIME CHANGE -- THE VIABILITY OF DETERRENCE & DIPLOMACY AS
ALTERNATIVES TO MILITARY ACTION -- PROSPECTS FOR THE SUCCESS OF IRANIAN EFFORTS TO DEMOCRATIZE IRAN,
ESTABLISH THE RULE OF LAW IN THAT COUNTRY, & FORCE CONSTITUTIONAL RESTRAINTS & DEMOCRATIC
ACCOUNTABILITY UPON THE IRANIAN LEADERSHIP
FULL STORY:
With negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program showing scant signs of progress, there is growing debate about whether the
United States should pursue a policy of regime change in Tehran. Some experts contend that, after 9/11, the threat of rogue
regimes like Iran transferring nuclear weapons or technology to terrorist organizations outweighs the risks associated with
forcible regime change. Others say deterrence and diplomacy are the preferable options, given the unintended consequences
of regime change in recent history.
Robert Litwak, Director of International Studies at the Woodrow Wilson Center and author of the recent book, Regime
Change: U.S. Strategy Through the Prism of 9/11, and Michael Rubin, Resident Scholar at the American Enterprise
Institute and Editor of the Middle East Quarterly, debate whether regime change in Iran should be part of U.S. foreign
policy.
Weigh in on this debate by emailing the Editors of Council on Foreign Relations at webmaster@cfr.org. To view other
CFR online debates click here.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
April 30, 2007
Robert Litwak
Throughout the nuclear crisis with Iran, the Bush administration has sent a mixed message. U.S. officials stick to the familiar
mantra: “All options are on the table.” But to what end? Is the goal to change the behavior of the Tehran regime or to change
the regime itself?
The 9/11 terrorist attacks recast the debate over U.S. strategy toward Iran and other “rogue states.” The administration shifted
from a mix of deterrence and containment before 9/11 to an emphasis on regime change. The underlying assumption was that
the unacceptable behavior of these rogue regimes derived from their very nature. Hence, to change the behavior, you had to
change the regimes. The belief that rogue states were less likely to be deterred from using weapons of mass destruction
(WMD) and more likely to provide them to terrorist groups fueled the decision to launch the preventive war in Iraq. After the
toppling of the Saddam Hussein regime, administration officials hailed Iraq as a “type” — a new model of nonproliferation,
based on externally imposed regime change. One hardliner declared that the message of the Iraq war for Iran was “Take a
number.”
In Tehran, a “limited” U.S. military strike on Iran’s nuclear infrastructure would be viewed as the initiation of a regime-toppling
war, which would trigger major Iranian retaliation against U.S. interests worldwide, starting in Iraq. And the Iranian people
would rally round the flag and the mullahs against the United States.
Some regime-change proponents view Iran — with its politically energized civil society — as ripe for a revolution from below.
But we can’t wait for this indeterminate process of societal change to play out while Iran’s nuclear program accelerates.
The alternative to military action — diplomacy — is at an impasse, and is hampered by the United States’ mixed message.
Regime-change rhetoric in Washington strengthens the hardliners in Tehran, who can point to it as the rationale for a
nuclear bomb. Has Tehran made an irreversible decision to acquire nuclear weapons? We don’t know. To test their intentions,
Iran should be presented with a structured choice in which the United States makes clear that it will take yes for an answer if
Tehran changes its behavior. In short, we need to pivot toward a new strategy of containment, whose key elements are
deterrence and an assurance of nonintervention. Such a strategy would decouple the nuclear issue from the question of
regime change and rely on internal forces as the agents of societal change.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
April 30, 2007
Michael Rubin
Even as Iran’s nuclear program has developed, the Bush administration has lacked a cohesive policy toward Tehran. An
artificial dichotomy between engagement and regime change has polarized debate. Too often, proponents of engagement
construct a straw-man argument about regime change to equate it with military action.
No serious policymaker seeks military action against Iran. Iranians are nationalistic. Any military strike would enable the
regime to rally Iranians around the flag. Nor would even targeted strikes against the Islamic Republic’s nuclear facilities end
its program; at best, military strikes would only delay it. Nothing would be more irresponsible than the White House using
the military to buy time because policymakers have not had the discipline to formulate a strategy.
This does not mean unrestrained engagement is a better option. Between 2000 and 2005, the apex of both European
engagement and the Khatami Presidency, European Union trade with Tehran almost tripled. During that same period, Iranian
leaders pumped hard currency into their weapons program and, at the time, still-covert nuclear program. Either Khatami’s
rhetoric was insincere or he, like the many diplomats under him, had no insight into or control over the actions of other
power centers.
If engagement is to be successful, it must include the sincere involvement of the people who control those aspects of regime
behavior which Washington finds most objectionable — this means the Supreme Leader and the Revolutionary Guards. This
is an unlikely prospect.
Everyone who has been to Iran is aware of the sophistication of Iranian intellectuals and much of the public. Many Iranians
resent the corruption and adventurism of their leadership. The reformers are largely discredited. They are new paint on a
rotten house. No Iranian inside Iran wants regime change from abroad, but they do embrace the ideas of popular sovereignty
and democracy. Here, interests converge. Should the Iranian leadership become more accountable to its citizenry, then they
will emphasize what most Iranians want — better schools, medical care, and employment prospects, rather than expensive
adventurism.
What policymakers should support are Iranian efforts to democratize and force accountability upon their leadership. This is
what independent unions inside Iran struggle for. Democracy is just peaceful regime change. I agree with Robert that we
should rely on internal forces as the agents of change. Unfortunately, regime engagement will both undercut those forces
and enable the Iranian leadership to run down the clock on its nuclear program.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 1, 2007
Robert Litwak
Despite the major constraints on the use of force, which Michael acknowledges, the Bush administration has kept the
military option "on the table." Open speculation persists in the press over whether the United States will strike Iran's
nuclear facilities as it is poised to cross a major technological threshold, or "red line" (with respect to uranium enrichment),
on the path to a bomb. But because this "counter-proliferation" option would encompass strikes against a broad range of
targets over several days, it is indistinguishable from a preventive war strategy to change the regime.
Furthermore, Washington's mixed message on its objective — regime change versus behavior change — creates confusion
about the meaning of U.S. military deployments in Iraq. The recent surge of an additional U.S. carrier battle group into the
Persian Gulf, which was intended as a deterrent signal to stop Iranian meddling in Iraq, may well have appeared to Tehran
as preparation for strikes on nuclear targets. Given the proximity of U.S. and Iranian forces, the danger of miscommunication
and inadvertent escalation is real.
On the contentious issue of engagement, Michael and I have different assessments. He views engagement of the regime as
a prop that buys it time to pursue its nuclear ambitions, while stifling forces of democratic change within Iran. Unfortunately,
the uncertain timeline for societal change is not in sync with the near-term timeline for nuclear acquisition. The regime has
ample coercive means to crack down on opposition (witness its brutal suppression of past student demonstrations) and,
with the financial wherewithal provided by $70-per-barrel oil, can insulate itself from internal pressures by buying off
potential malcontents. Current U.S. policy eschews direct negotiations with the regime, while seeking to engage Iranian civil
society through a $75 million democracy-promotion program that targets non-governmental organizations (NGOs).
Yet, this government-sponsored program has already had the effect of politically tainting the very groups it is intended to
support. Some democracy activists have faced detention and interrogation over alleged complicity in a U.S. plot to foment a
"soft revolution." U.S. efforts to engage Iranian NGOs should be done by their American NGO counterparts. In tandem with
this unconditional engagement on the societal level, the U.S. government should pursue structured, pragmatic engagement
with the Tehran regime on issues of mutual concern, starting with the nuclear question and Iraq. To get leverage on these
issues, Washington needs to employ bigger carrots and more effective sticks.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 2, 2007
Michael Rubin
That all options remain on the table is reality; it has nothing to do with regime change. So long as the Islamic Republic remains
the world’s greatest sponsor of terrorism and is not forthright about its nuclear program, military action will remain a last resort
— one with so many incumbent costs that hopefully it will never occur. The idea that there is a preventive war strategy to
change the regime is, at best, a straw-man argument and, at worst, a conspiracy theory.
Criticism regarding carrier group dispatch is misplaced. First, it is important that Arab states in the Persian Gulf recognize that
the United States is going to defend its interests and protect our allies. Second, while Washington assumes events revolve
around our decisions, the danger is Iranian overconfidence. Decision-makers in Iran, those in the office of the Supreme Leader
and the Revolutionary Guard, may confuse democratic debate with weakness and inadvertently cross a red line. We know from
their statements that they do not take U.S. diplomatic demarches seriously. That the United States is willing to demonstrate red
lines aids transparency and reduces the risk of accidental conflict.
With regard to engagement, we need to abandon the notion that longterm strategies to encourage the accountability of the
Iranian government to its citizenry and shortterm diplomacy are mutually exclusive. Providing moral support for the Vahed
transportation workers’ ongoing attempts to form the Islamic Republic’s first independent trade union will not bring instant
change. That does not mean it is wise to ignore them or to collude with the regime that seeks to crush them.
No argument that assistance — when handled improperly — can taint dissidents. But let’s not be ahistorical: Tehran’s
crackdown on dissent predated the congressional appropriation of $75 million. Hamid Reza Taraqi, head of the hard-line Islamic
Coalition Party, foreshadowed the crackdown in an interview in Etemad well before the Congressional appropriation.
Dissidents like Ahmad Batebi and Mansour Ossanlou put their necks on the line regardless of what the regime says about them.
The most vocal opponents to U.S. assistance are not dissidents who oppose theocratic dictatorship, but, rather, the reformers
who want to soften, but preserve, clerical rule.
Past practice shows that a strategy of speaking softly and waving a big carrot does not work with Iran. Tehran has become
conditioned to expect reward for non-compliance. It is time we end that cycle. What sticks do you see as effective, Robert?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 3, 2007
Robert Litwak
The prospect of a successful civil society uprising against the regime within a timeframe relevant to the nuclear question is a
vain hope. At the same time, the Bush administration is not able to credibly threaten the use of force to bolster diplomacy
because of the mixed message on the objective. Coercive diplomacy is not possible when the apparent objective is the
maximalist one of regime change. That a “limited” counter-proliferation strike on Iran’s nuclear sites would be perceived in
Tehran as the initiation of a preventive war is a reality, not a straw man. How would a U.S. military attack (which carries the
certainty of significant Iranian retaliation) not spiral into general war, Michael?
Given the constraints on the military option, how should the United States approach nuclear diplomacy with Iran? Because
of the unresolved contradiction in U.S. policy over the question of regime change, Washington missed a major opportunity.
The administration reportedly rebuffed an initiative from Tehran for a strategic dialogue at the moment of maximum U.S.
leverage with Iran in the aftermath of the toppling of the Saddam Hussein regime in 2003 — before the election of
Ahmadinejad, the ramping up of Iran’s nuclear program, and Iraq’s descent into civil war.
Washington’s challenge now is to reestablish policy leverage under far less favorable circumstances. Ahmadinejad’s radical
foreign policy has generated a domestic backlash from pragmatic conservatives and reformists, who defend Iran’s right to
civil nuclear energy, but are open to a nuclear deal. Taking regime change off the table in Washington will put behavior
change on the table in Tehran.
Though Tehran is vulnerable to economic coercion, international support for meaningful sanctions will be impossible to
marshal if others believe the U.S. goal is regime change, rather than behavior change. As with Libya, a credible U.S. assurance
of regime security would be central to any nuclear deal. The Bush administration must make clear that it would be willing to
take yes for an answer. A major question is whether the administration's regime-change rhetoric has priced Washington out of
the reassurance market in Tehran.
My major concern is that, if the United States can’t bomb (because of the risk of escalation) and won’t seriously negotiate
(because that is viewed as rewarding bad behavior), the administration may find itself on a third path — acquiescing to a fait
accompli by the other side, as has sadly happened in the case of North Korea since 2003.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
May 3, 2007
Michael Rubin
Support for independent civil society and diplomacy need not be mutually exclusive. An uprising may be unlikely, but
longterm security depends upon accountability of the regime to ordinary Iranians. We should not ignore the increasing
frequency in student protests and labor unrest. Nor should we ignore that response to previous engagement has been
intransigence and crackdown, not liberalism [rule of law, constitutionalism, democratic accountability, and civil liberties].
We agree that any military strike would enable the regime to rally its citizens around the flag. An Islamic Republic of Iran
with nuclear arms would be like dying of a heart attack, while a military strike would be like dying of cancer; that is why
effective preventative medicine is so necessary.
Moscow and Beijing are playing power politics. They will never agree to effective sanctions. The fault is not ours. We
should not sacrifice national security upon the altar of multilateralism. Effectiveness matters. There are other economic
levers at our disposal, though.
The 2003 Iranian offer is bogus. Washington and Tehran were already talking in Geneva, although Tehran broke the
commitments it made there. That was the channel, not an unsigned English fax. Even the Swiss Foreign Ministry
acknowledges privately that Tim Guldimann, the Swiss Ambassador, was freelancing. Nor do serious proposals come
with the caveat that the issuing party only agrees with 80 percent of its own paper.
But, back to the issue: I wish I had your faith in Iran’s “pragmatic conservatives.” These are the men who built and
concealed the nuclear program, and misled the IAEA. Nor is it wise to overemphasize factionalism. Every country has
factions. But, when push comes to shove, power in Iran rests with the Supreme Leader and the Revolutionary Guards, not
parliamentarians and diplomats. For negotiations to be successful, we need to deal with the people who can make a
commitment and have it stick. That was the lesson Bill Clinton learned at Camp David II, and that is why negotiations with
the Libyans took an extra three years. The history of Iranian adherence to its own commitments does not build confidence.
Ideology matters. We have to assume that Ayatollahs Khamenei, Mesbah-Yazdi, Jannati, and President Ahmadinejad
mean what they say. Regime preservation is not in our interest. I look forward to the day when Iran is not a pariah. We
should have no more “Chicken Kiev” moments, where we sacrifice freedom so as not to complicate diplomacy. Nor, as we
have with North Korea, should the deal ever become more important than its contents.
LINKS TO RELATED TOPICS:
The Middle East & the Problem of Iran
American Foreign Policy -- The Middle East
American Foreign Policy -- Constitutional Democracy:
U.S. Promotion of Constitutional Democracy in Foreign Countries
Islamism & Jihadism -- The Threat of Radical Islam
Page Three
Page Two
Page One
International Politics & World Disorder:
War & Peace in the Real World
Page Two
Page One
Islamist Terrorist Attacks on the U.S.A.
Osama bin Laden & the Islamist Declaration of War
Against the U.S.A. & Western Civilization
Islamist International Terrorism &
U.S. Intelligence Agencies
U.S. National Security Strategy
The foregoing debate between Robert S. Litvak and Michael Rubin was originally published in Council on Foreign
Relations, April 30 - May 3, 2007, and can be found on the Internet website maintained by the
Middle East Forum, a think tank which seeks to define and promote American
interests in the Middle East, defining U.S. interests to include fighting radical Islam, working for Palestinian Arab
acceptance of the State of Israel, improving the management of U.S. efforts to promote constitutional democracy in the
Middle East,, reducing America's energy dependence on the Middle East, more robustly asserting U.S. interests
vis-à-vis Saudi Arabia, and countering the Iranian threat.
Republished with Permission of the Middle East Forum
Reprinted from the Middle East Forum News
mefnews@meforum.org (MEF NEWS)
May 4, 2007
Return to Top of Page
Go to the WEBSITE INDEX
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Public Issues & Political Controversies
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
Most Recent Articles
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Volume IX, 2007
Return to Beginning of
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA,
Subject Matter Highlights
Return to POLITICAL EDUCATION Homepage
CONTACT & ACCESS INFORMATION
This is not a commercial website. The sole purpose of the website is to share with interested persons information regarding civics,
civic and social education, political science, government, politics, law, constitutional law and history, public policy, and political
philosophy and history, as well as current and recent political developments, public issues, and political controversies.
POLITICAL EDUCATION, CONSERVATIVE ANALYSIS
POLITICS, SOCIETY, & THE SOVEREIGN STATE
Website of Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr.
Government, Politics, Public Policy, Legal Issues, Constitutional Law, Government & the Economy, Cultural Values, Foreign Affairs,
International Relations, Military Defense & National Security, Geopolitics, Terrorism & Homeland Security, American National Interests,
Political Systems & Processes, Political Institutions, Political Ideologies, & Political Philosophy
INDEX FOR THE ENTIRE WEBSITE
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z
THE PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE, USA
An Online Journal of Political Commentary & Analysis
Dr. Almon Leroy Way, Jr., Editor
Conservative & Free-Market Analysis of Government, Politics & Public Policy, Covering Political, Legal, Constitutional, Economic,
Cultural, Military, International, Strategic, & Geopolitical Issues
Conservative Government Ensures a Nation's Strength, Progress, & Prosperity