What will the Iranian government look like after this military conflict? This question is asked in the media. And, we are told, it could be a disaster depending on who or what replaces the current Islamic dictatorship.
Well, this is interesting.
So I’ll answer this seemingly complicated question: we have no idea what it will look like. In fact, how can we know, since we have no desire to be involved in any post-war ‘democracy project’?
We have declared to the Iranian people that once most hostilities are over, it will be up to them to overthrow the government. And logically it will be up to them to decide what will replace it – especially if we do not intend to become involved in a post-war project.
Of course, much of the hostility to “democracy projects” stems from our experiences in Iraq, where the word “democracy” was continually used as a justification for waging that war. It didn’t turn out well and we suffered significant losses.
The question before us is not what a postwar Iran will look like, but whether, for several reasons, it is in our interests to become involved in shaping that outcome—and if so, to what extent and in what way.
But every case is unique. Not all conflicts are Iraq. After World War II, we played an important role in establishing governments in Japan and Western Europe. We followed the Marshall Plan in Europe, and that effort proved successful.
But if you’re going to ask questions about post-war Iran – if we have no intention of playing a role in forming a new government, even though non-involvement has consequences – then the question is not serious or unknowable. Most people who ask this do so out of concern about what might happen.
AMERICA ATTACKS IRAN AGAIN – DOES WASHINGTON HAVE PLANS FOR WHAT’S TO COME?
The more important question, it seems to me, is whether we will play a role at all in postwar Iran, especially if the nature of the new government is a matter of serious consequences. That is clearly so. I am not advocating a ‘democracy project’, but I am suggesting that a hands-off approach can be problematic, if not disastrous.
So the question before us is not what a postwar Iran will look like, but whether it is in our interests for several reasons to become involved in shaping that outcome—and if so, to what extent and in what way.
The truth is that if we stand aside completely, we risk the recurrence of the regime we destroyed. There will undoubtedly be remnants of the existing regime, or even a significant population determined to sabotage the establishment of a democratic or non-authoritarian government. If not disarmed, they may well succeed in a power struggle for control.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE FOX NEWS ADVICE
Moreover, let us not pretend that China, Russia or Turkey – and perhaps others – will not see our absence as an opportunity to influence Iran or impose their will. In short, doing nothing would be a potentially dangerous and serious mistake.
I am concerned that not enough thought has been given to this, especially when our position is to leave the matter entirely to others. This does not mean that we should deploy troops to impose democracy on the country. But there are many more options than that.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Again, Iran is not Iraq. The Persian people share many, if not most, of our Western values. Persian culture is among the most advanced of any civilization. Its roots are ancient and its history is marked by achievements in education, science and the arts.
The immediate issue, of course, is the total defeat of the regime that has hijacked the Iranian government, enslaved its people and has posed an existential threat to our country and the world for nearly half a century. But we can walk and chew gum at the same time. The nature of a post-war Iranian government is a crucial issue for both the Iranian people and our country, so that the struggle we are waging today will not be in vain.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE FROM MARK LEVIN
