An Iranian civil war is not in America’s interest

“Regime change by jazz improvisation.” That is how the respected scholar of Iran Karim Sadjadpour described the Trump administration’s strategy in the war it has initiated with Iran. Sadly, it is the most accurate description of the scattered, shifting and uncertain approach that emanates from Washington these days.

The president launched this war exhorting the Iranian people to overthrow their government. Perhaps he had assumed that the regime would collapse instantly. But when it didn’t, in a day or two, he changed course. He began musing about dealing with potential leaders within the regime and praising the U.S. intervention in Venezuela as the model to be followed (“perfect”) precisely because, far from regime change, it only involved the arrest of two people. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth specifically denied that this was a “regime change war,” as did his senior aide, Elbridge Colby. Both said the goal was merely to degrade Iran’s military forces (many of which had been “obliterated” last June in a 12-day bombing attack that included the use of stealth bombers). But then, in a new twist, President Donald Trump reached out to Kurdish leaders in Iran and Iraq, promising them support if they would join in the fight — not to degrade Iran’s military power, but to help topple the government in Tehran and maybe even change Iran’s borders. Trump has now proclaimed there won’t be a deal without “UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER” from Iran.

To read the full article, please click here.