An implosion, a collapse or a transition: what would regime change in Iran look like?

The Guardian reports: “The French president, Emmanuel Macron, warned against toppling a government “when you have no idea what comes next”. Insisting that he had no time for the Iranian government, Macron argued that it was for the people of Iran to choose their rulers.”

“The biggest mistake today is to seek, through military means, to bring about regime change in Iran, because that will lead to chaos. Does anyone think that what was done in 2003 in Iraq [against Saddam Hussein] was a good idea? Does anyone think that what was done in Libya the following decade [the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi in 2011] was a good idea?”

President Macron is herewith openly criticizing the Israeli and US strategy for Iran. President Trump and PM Netanyahu openly demand a regime change in Iran, and openly discuss to kill the Ayatollah, Iran’s leader Ali Khamenei. And Macron openly opposes to it.

By contrast, Friedrich Merz, the German chancellor, said: “We are dealing with a terrorist regime both internally and externally. It would be good if this regime came to an end.” He admitted: “Regime changes have not always led to the outcomes we desired, but we have positive examples.” And Merz mentions Syria.

It can only be a joke. How Merz can pretend that the regime change in Syria is positive? Either Merz is completely unprofessional or he is telling nonsense to try to find an argument for a regime change in Iran without a plan. Syria’s laicistic government under the dictatorship of Asad was change for fundamentalist-islamist dictatorship under the rule of former ISIS leaders – and Russia still is keeping it military basis in Syria.

The Guardian rightfully discusses the ethnicity problems in Iran.” … Iran – a country of vastly diverse ethnicities, religions, politics and incomes – no western planning for the aftermath of the regime’s possible collapse has been made. Balkanisation is a real possibility. Iran is not an artificial state drawn up by foreign office planners, but the fear of separatism stalks the leadership of a country in which Persians make up only 50% of the country. About a quarter are Azeri or Turkic people (including the supreme leader, Ali Khamenei), and there are Balochs, Kurds, Arabs, and smaller groups of Jews, Assyrians, and Armenians.”

If Iran implodes, if the various ethic people try to unwind their nation, it may result in major fights and battles. Azeris will fight for their reunion with Azerbaijan, Kurds will fight for their freedom and a Kurdish state and different religious groups, Jews, Assyrians, Zorast, e.a. may be crushed in between. And there will be the bloody fight for oil and resources. The UN is already mobilizing for huge coming refugee flows.

What else may there be? There is no relevant opposition in Iran, no people’s movement. Iranians cannot and will not kill their Mullahs, their keepers of their Muslim faith. A regime change for a sustainable solution is not visible, there is no potential leadership figure.

The World has experienced the years long conflict Iran-Iraq, when the Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was sponsored by the West, by the US, to fight the Iranian Mullah Regime, and failed. We all know what happened to Iraq, and what kind of failed state Iraq is today. Iran prevailed.

Israeli strategists may consider a “federalization” of Iran, a break up into regions, with each predominant ethnic or religious majority. No doubt, this “balkanization” will result in decades of wars and bloodbaths with international consequences. A failed state Iran, uncontrollable and without leadership will bring terror to its neighbors and to the Western World. This outcome must be absolutely avoided.

Therefore, it is good that President Trump decided to postpone the US attack by two weeks, which may give him and his strategists enough time to reflect, but also time to the Iranian regime to kill further Israelis which will be forcefully revenged by Israel. Both suboptimal but maybe better it is to avoid a US implication with Global consequences.

In summary, the Israeli attack on Iran and its nuclear assets, as much as it may be justified, will not bring any solution in the foreseeable future. Israel may be too weak to finish the job alone. The US, having not strategic options and solutions, may hesitate to enter the unknown and may finally decide to withdraw or conclude an agreement or compromise with Iran – which at best would postpone long enough the next armed conflict. Israel may not agree to a compromise as Israel wants the job to be finished. What will happen then?

Neither politicians nor the ever fake or paid news have a viable solution at hand and can’t suggest the consequences of a collapse or implosion of the Iranian regime, while a peaceful transition is seemingly completely out of the real.