The ongoing war between Israel and the Islamic Republic of Iran cannot be a surprise to political observers. The nuclear infrastructure and the indigenous know-how to enrich uranium had rendered the ruling theocrats in Tehran a potential military nuclear threat intent on wiping Israel off the world map. The latest report last week by the International Atomic Energy Agency had squarely laid the blame at the Iranian government’s door accusing it of illegal activities inconsistent with its Non-Proliferation Treaty obligations.
President Trump initiated negotiations with Iran hoping to persuade her to give up uranium enrichment altogether. A two-month window opened by Trump closed last Thursday without any breakthrough. The day after on Friday 13 June Israel began her massive bombardment of Iranian military and nuclear sites. It is estimated that the attacks are likely to last for three weeks.
Iranian people, long eager for change, may now once more feel emboldened to demand fundamental changes in the country. Buoyed up by the significant damage inflicted on the Iranian government in the past 5 days, Iranians may now see an opportunity to stage once again their protest against the status quo. The unprecedented elimination of the high-military cadre of the country may now produce a vacuum for people to rise up against the Islamic Republic with a new-found confidence in the inability of the government forces to quash the protestors.
Thus far those taken out by the Israelis or their agents in Iran do not include clerical rulers but only top commanders of the military cadres. At some point, if Benjamin Netanyahu aims to topple the Iranian regime, some of the robed officials of the Iranian establishment will also have to be included in their hit list. Moreover, organizations such as Parliament and certain other organs may well be the subject of Israeli bombardment.
In the process, people will begin to gather in the streets to demonstrate their anger against their inept and corrupt rulers. Sure enough, popular discontent together with debilitated security forces make for fundamental change in the political structure of the country. However, the absence of an established and internationally recognized alternative to take the reins of government in the aftermath of the collapse of the Islamic Republic can mean a period of chaos and disorder for Iran. Likely but not necessarily.
The disillusionment of the armed forces, whether in the regular army or in the Revolutionary Guards must be at an all-time high now. A series of spectacular defeats in the region including Lebanon (dismantling of Hezbollah’s military wing), Syria (collapse of Bashar Assad regime), Gaza (near-total demolition of Hamas), and other such instances, is now made much worse by the humiliating defeat at the hands of their sworn enemy, Isreal, whose destruction they have been preaching for 46 years. This atmosphere of despondency and dejection is usually ripe for military intervention in the shape of a coup de tat. Such an outcome could also help save some vestiges of the clerical regime, whereby army and revolutionary commanders have amassed huge wealth and could hope to retain them.
The exiled Crown Pince Reza Pahlavi of Iran is the most internationally recognized opposition figure to the Islamic Republic. His popularity amongst Iranians stems from his liberal views and the nostalgic sentiments of the people for the pre-revolution era, when his father and grandfather brought Iran into the modern age offering Iranians an unprecedented level of prosperity that was the envy of all regional countries. Despite those credentials, however, certain centers of power in the world, unhappy with the ambitious and successful policies of the his Dynastic predecessors, work against his leadership of the Iranian opposition.
There is then the overt and covert roles of international players. Most poignantly the Europeans, the Americans and the Russians. Moscow, and its predecessor the Soviet Union, have been on friendly terms with the religious government in Tehran since its establishment in 1979. The IRGC, in particular is believed to bear the mark of Russian training and influence. However, eager to encourage and sustain the new policy of the US government as regards the war in Ukraine, President Putin may be willing to do a deal with President Trump on the fate of the Islamic Republic and her possible successor.
Trump Administration appears unwilling to commit US forces and resources to dismantle Iranian nuclear threat if the same radical anti-American rulers would remain in power in Iran to press on with their Islamist policies against the United States. That logical cognition can indicate a latent objective in Washington to replace the current regime in Iran with one that is more amenable to American interests.
Europeans appear to be in a state of uncertainty. Though not displeased with the elimination of IRGC leaders and the possible consequent weakening of Russian influence in Iran, they are not sure how the final outcome will fare. US-European rivalries in Iran are nothing new and extend to its rich natural resources, its considerable domestic market and of course its strategic significance. The 2015 agreement – JCPOA – between President Obama and the Islamic Republic to limit and contain Iranian nuclear threat did not seem to address US interests, hence its unilateral abrogation by President Trump during his first tenure in the White House.
Stakes are high in Iran. The oldest nation in the world has now been in the grip of a regressive regime for nearly half a century. The region has been affected adversely by the Islamic Republic and now we may be approaching a tipping point, where in the wake of this humiliating defeat for the Islamic Republic, the implosion of the country’s forces could provide an opportunity for the people of Iran to regain the control of their country.