Regime Change is Good Sometimes
The devil is in the details, not the concept
Recently, Bill Maher made a point that I was glad to hear somebody make, because it’s been missing from our what-passes-for-a-conversation-these-days on Iran:
He’s right: Iraq is no longer a contentender for the highly competitive title of “worst government in the world”. They’re not a perfect democracy, but folks — not sure if you’ve noticed — we’re not a perfect democracy. And neither is any other country. If Iraq had gone from Saddam to the current government after an hour of intense-but-respectful debate, that would have been one of the big human rights wins of our lifetime. The problem was the enormous transition cost: There were hundreds of thousands of deaths, trillions of dollars spent, and several intensely stupid Michael Moore films in between Point A and Point B.
It’s clear that when the Trump administration hears the phrase “regime change”, they think “George W. Bush”. Hegseth immediately cited Bush when pressed about his incoherent mumblings on regime change, and when Vance complained about “dumb presidents”, Bush’s ears surely burst into flames. Trump himself has been in “Duffman says a lot of things” mode for weeks (decades?), but if regime change was his main goal, he would have started the war when the Iranian people were in the streets and wouldn’t now be signaling that he’s ready to deal. Which means that the worst-case scenario is on the table: We blow up a school, lose American lives, fail to make the Middle East safer, and leave in place a regime that is a contender for “worst government in the world”.
