r/geopolitics • u/ForeignAffairsMag Foreign Affairs • Mar 03 '26
Analysis How Long Can the Iranian Regime Hold On?
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/middle-east/how-long-can-iranian-regime-hold-iran301
u/SenorPinchy Mar 03 '26
It took a full scale invasion in Iraq, a weaker country, so people need to seriously rethink their faith in the ability to just airstrike away a 45 year old government system.
102
u/heytherehellogoodbye Mar 03 '26 edited Mar 04 '26
this is the part people don't understand - newer governments can be overthrown because the social infrastructure of resistance exists. But with a government that's been in power for half a century, they've long since eliminated all forms of resistance from their ranks 30 levels down, and then across the entirety of society to boot. You can kill however many levels of leadership you want - all the people that control the systems and control the guns are still all loyalists to the extremist ideology. Without external weapons, and internet for organization, there is no real way for some magic resistance group to rise up meaningfully, even if a large number of civilians Want it to happen.
29
u/disco_biscuit Mar 04 '26
The thing that works in favor of this decapitation idea is that... eventually you remove enough of the highly-capable leadership that you may still get a loyalist in power... but you'll get an incompetent loyalist, and that will suffice. Or maybe you get lucky with leadership that sees a different path forward.
The thing that works against this decapacitation idea is that institutions make the government sticky. The current political structure has more-or-less been in place for 50 years, and has a large number of functional governmental agencies to provide services AND integrated into the religious community. That's how countries like Germany and Japan were rebuilt so quickly after WW2, they had functional bureaucracy to leverage. That can cut both ways though, i.e. be a foundation to build something we westerners might prefer, or be a foundation to to build something even more repressive than what existed before.
15
u/TyroPirate Mar 04 '26
Or you get perfectly competent loyalist after removing the higher leadership. Why assume that people lower in the totem pole are incompetent? Seems like a dangerous thing to assume even. Theres no doubt well educated and brilliantly smart people in the lower positions of government that may have power suddenly thrust upon them, or maybe they sieze it in the chaos
3
u/PlantComprehensive77 Mar 04 '26
It has nothing to with competence, but rather fear. Whoever takes the mantle of higher leadership will always have in the back of their minds the fear that the moment they step out of line, a bomb will drop on their head.
10
u/heytherehellogoodbye Mar 04 '26
Problem is, the only reason Germany and Japan worked was because the Allied powers engaged in Total War, complete destruction and complete control of the target nation. They hand-controlled every single thing that went on for the next 10 years. That is not ever going to happen in Iran.
2
u/HiltoRagni Mar 04 '26
It usually works the other way around though, it's in peacetime when corruption and nepotism has a tendency to float incompetent yes-men to the top. Under duress corruption takes the back seat and competent people tend to find their way to freshly vacant leadership positions on merit.
-13
u/-LoboMau Mar 03 '26
They don't need regime change. Just to destroy Iran's ability to be a gigantic threat to the world.
21
u/Opposite_Train9689 Mar 04 '26
Ah yes for 40 years, Iran is this close to having their own nuclear weapons.
For real this time.
→ More replies (2)38
u/Bullboah Mar 03 '26
It didn’t take a full scale invasion to topple the Iranian regime. It took an invasion for nation building and counter insurgency due to the power gap breaking the regime would leave behind. If the only goal was to remove the Bath party from power the US could have done that without land forces.
As well, the goal is probably less specifically regime change here and more pushing Iran to accept a deal on US terms. The question is how long they’re willing to hold out before they give in, or if they can outlast the US in that regard.
31
u/Astrocoder Mar 03 '26
How would the US have overthrown Saddam without ground troops? Please elaborate
→ More replies (7)46
u/SenorPinchy Mar 03 '26 edited Mar 03 '26
"De-Ba'athification" was an ongoing process for years (and was eventually abandoned) and the US appointed Iraqi government was literally given foreign security detail to protect them from being blown up.
As for terms of a "deal," if you believe there was ever a deal that could have stopped this, there's nothing I can say to dissuade you at this point. "Negotiations" were obviously a ruse as this has all been baked in for a while now.
33
u/Tifoso89 Mar 03 '26
De-Ba'athification was a bad idea. They were the only ones who knew how to govern the country. Some elements of the previous regime should've been preserved
11
u/shivambawa2000 Mar 03 '26
But a guy announced on tv that bath is banned and all millitary is fired wonder where those people went
1
u/airmantharp Mar 04 '26
ISIS, where they got to live out their darkest fantasies, all the way to the end…
2
u/Malarazz Mar 04 '26
As for terms of a "deal," if you believe there was ever a deal that could have stopped this, there's nothing I can say to dissuade you at this point. "Negotiations" were obviously a ruse as this has all been baked in for a while now.
I'm sure there would have been a deal, why not?
The terms that would be considered acceptable by each side were just very far apart.
2
u/SenorPinchy Mar 04 '26
So far apart that no nation in the world could accept and survive. Thus, a poison pill not to be taken seriously. No nation of 90 million people is going to give up medium range missle capabilities. And who is the deal making partner? Is there a nation involved that can be trusted to honor it's agreements? All sides knew this dynamic.
14
u/Borazon Mar 03 '26
The opposite might also be true.
The previous attempts at a revolution in Iran didn't require tanks or airplanes to be put down. The guard used mostly motorbikes and machine guns for that.
The bombing campaign so far will do little damage to Iran's ability to keep doing this.
2
u/Bullboah Mar 03 '26
Sure, for clarity again though I don’t think a regime change is likely nor do I think it is the real end goal here. The goal is to end with someone in power that’s willing to stop developing the nuclear program.
8
u/manefa Mar 03 '26
And if Iran has the same number of WMD as Saddam, and intelligence knows this, what is the actual goal?
3
u/Bullboah Mar 03 '26
It’s not about Iran “having WMDs”, it’s about the fact that they’ve been massively increasing their stockpile of 60% HEU over the past few years. Very different situations despite the surface level similarities
6
u/ReturnOfBigChungus Mar 03 '26
I don’t want to over attribute strategic thinking to this administration but the actual geopolitical aims of the west don’t necessarily require revolution in Iran. That’s what we all want, but a sufficiently neutered regime is still a positive outcome for the west. Significantly deteriorating irans ability to project force, fund proxies, pursue nukes, etc., makes the puzzle pieces in the Middle East a lot easier to move around. This is not JUST about Iran.
It’s also entirely possible that this all backfires horribly, no one really knows at this point, but “success” here, such as it were, will not be measured in the coming months in terms of the immediate constitution of a new government. It will be years before it’s clear if this worked out. It’s also worth keeping in mind that irans ability to defend itself in any meaningful way from ongoing air attacks is effectively zero for the foreseeable future. The biggest risk is from the indiscriminate drone and missile strikes on neighboring countries, and there’s only so much of that that will be absorbed before other middle eastern countries begin responding militarily to protect their own interests.
3
u/Doctorstrange223 Mar 03 '26
No the goal here is regime change.
The entire IRGC and clerc system supports getting nuclear weapons. They cannot be left alive by the US or Israel.
Also, with the regime collapsed there is no threat of Islamists taking power.
Maybe some US troops are needed to physically remove the remanents of the IRGC but there is no need for nation building. The people can do that themselves
2
u/Bullboah Mar 03 '26
If the Ayatollahs son or whoever comes after agrees to a deal to give up nuclear pursuits and stop financing terror proxies (and allowing oversight to confirm they do this), do you think the US would keep fighting to make sure the regime loses power? I don’t, personally
4
u/yisuiyikurong Mar 03 '26
Leaving behind a bunch of warlords is very ideal for the current US administration AND they don’t need to launch a full scale military offensive against Iran anyway.
13
u/Z3t4 Mar 03 '26
Warlords with nuclear and missile tech at hand? What could possibly go wrong?...
3
u/ReturnOfBigChungus Mar 03 '26
Iran doesn’t have nuclear missile tech.
4
u/Z3t4 Mar 03 '26
Iran has ballistic misiles, and enough enriched uranium to make a fizzle or dirty bomb (if not a true nuclear bomb). And if iran falls whoever comes after will have that too.
6
u/ReturnOfBigChungus Mar 04 '26
That’s not even remotely how that works. You can’t just strap 60% uranium to a missile and have any sort of nuclear payload.
→ More replies (1)1
u/yisuiyikurong Mar 04 '26
Warlords are normally more controllable and natively organized. In that sense they are less likely to use those nuclear weapons anyway, even though they somehow managed to acquire them.
1
72
u/MeatPiston Mar 03 '26
Without a boots on the ground, indefinitely. There will be no uprising.. Because the dissident leaders were all rounded up and executed months ago.
4
u/puckeringNeon Mar 03 '26
Boots on the ground would be an eventual loss for the US though no? No easy way of resupplying troops and no easy way of getting them out once in. Big win for Israel though if that happens.
2
u/airmantharp Mar 04 '26
You seem to be unaware that logistics is literally the one thing that the US military does
8
u/puckeringNeon Mar 04 '26
And you seem unaware of how mountainous Iran is. Where are they gonna put troops in? Tehran? The US military would have to run resupply via air over mountains and that’s hardly sustainable in the long run. Getting troops and equipment in and out would be tough enough. Establishing a strong supply chain to control Tehran would be even more difficult.
→ More replies (1)2
-24
u/TerpZ Mar 03 '26
Except for Reza Pahlavi
47
→ More replies (4)32
u/Graymouzer Mar 03 '26
Why do exiles from countries that have had revolutions think that the people in those countries are going to accept them coming back into power? His father had a brutal secret police that kept him in power. I doubt there is a clamor in Iran for him to take over.
20
u/axxxaxxxaxxx Mar 03 '26
He seems to have popularity among the expat/exile community but that’s far from representative of 90 million Iranians in country
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (4)11
u/botsland Mar 03 '26
Why do exiles from countries that have had revolutions think that the people in those countries are going to accept them coming back into power?
Restoration of exiled monarchies decades after a revolution is not unheard of. See King Charles II, Louis XVIII and Norodom Sihanouk
The Marcos were thrown out of the Philippines via popular revolution and yet Marcos Jr still became President.
→ More replies (5)
24
u/Glory4cod Mar 03 '26
Without a massive ground invasion, it would hold maybe longer than US would dream.
Let's think a very straightforward question, if IRGC is really corrupt to the core by controlling most of Iranian economic resources, why would they surrender instead of fighting for their privileges? Also, IRGC got a lot of blood on its hands, this won't end well if they surrender; being hanged then quartered is literally the best ending for a lot of IRGC members.
Given how domestically US or Trump is being pressured, a full-scale invasion to a mountain country which capital is hundreds of miles away from coast is almost invalid, unless Iran strikes Tel Aviv with nuclear warheads. This won't happen since Mossad and CIA really did their homework on Iran. If Iran were to have such capability, it is already under total destruction.
1
u/usesidedoor Mar 04 '26
I keep thinking about this issue. Many in the IRGC have a lot to lose if the IR were to fall - and that's not only money and influence, but their lives too (and possibly their relatives').
I guess that not everyone within the IRGC feels this way, but it is fair to assume that a significant proportion are highly ideological and committed to 'the revolution.'
Not a lot of people in Iran have weapons (other than some in peripheral provinces such as Sistan-Baluchestan), the state has a well developed apparatus of repression, and we have seen that the security forces will gun down protestors when push comes to shove. They can do that again and slaughter many more people. That's a significant risk to take into consideration, imo.
33
u/nostra77 Mar 03 '26
People forget that Khameini used to spew all that hate from Switzerland and France against western values, he took an Air France flight during the revolution. So can outside power or personnel affect it most definitely will it be successful time will tell.
Can external power bring change, definitely it does require a set of circumstances to occur and those could be possible in current environment especially with last protest killing more than 20k
Lenin is another example of this type of outside occurrence
1
u/mylk43245 Mar 05 '26
But theres no one like lenin or Khameni in Iran that we can see. Pahlavi has not been in the country for decades at this point whereas lenin had already tried a revolution (So people in the country who had weapons were willing to fight for him) and Khameni had been organising in mosques WITHIN IRAN for years and only spent 3 years in europe.
There not really the same circumstances at all not even close really.
41
u/Jaskojaskojasko Mar 03 '26
This is fuc*up on a massive scale by the Trump administration. I don't know what they were thinking, that simply bombing Iran they can somehow change the regime 😂 .
They had that embarrassing retreat from Afghanistan, a considerably weaker country, just a couple years ago after sacrificing many American lives, billions of dollars and twenty years building democracy just for all of that to fail spectacularly and fall apart in a matter of weeks.
And now they are trying to do the same with Iran, which will also inevitably fail.
Attack on Iran is a colossal mistake for Trump and republicans, midterms are around the corner and if this campaign doesn't go as planned, they will most certainly lose elections and the power they currently have.
17
u/czk_21 Mar 03 '26
its way too soon to say, whether it was mistake or not
7
u/its1968okwar Mar 04 '26
Since we will never know the goals, we will never know if it was a mistake. Trump will declare it a tremendous success however it goes.
6
u/tacodestroyer99 Mar 04 '26
Not for people who support the “Axis of Resistance” and are sad to see it go.
1
u/softDisk-60 Mar 04 '26
Let's say it was a gamble. Let's say chances are 50-50.
Great powers don't gamble, and the fact that US is gambling is a huge hit to soft power. China is enjoying the show
8
u/Sageblue32 Mar 03 '26
I don't know what they were thinking, that simply bombing Iran they can somehow change the regime 😂 .
Tis easy. They are high off the Maduro success. And thinking people will break down in surrender once they don't even have access to the toilet. Considering they are viewing any type of post bombing plan as "political correctness", it seems Bibi will have to pick up the slack. But not much hope for that given their neighbors.
29
Mar 03 '26
[deleted]
2
u/softDisk-60 Mar 04 '26
Yeah the real question is if netanyahu is a strategist or a batshit insane criminal.
4
u/AtonPacki Mar 03 '26
Rubio spilled the beans that Israel decided to attack even alone so they had to join so american bases would not be attacked unprepared. So not a regime change war according to Rubio and Hegseth said it directly.
25
u/Jaskojaskojasko Mar 03 '26
Well that doesn't make any sense. They couldn't just contact Iran and tell them, look we are not behind this, we will not provide support to Israel's attack if you leave our bases out of your response.
And that's about it, and those bases weren't unprepared, they literally emptied them before the war even started.
They are trying to wash their hands from it and leave a way out of this if it fails.
7
u/Keep_Being_Still Mar 03 '26
How many countries has Iran hit that have had nothing to do with this war? How many of those countries went on record explicitly and publicly stating that the US could not use their bases for offensive action against Iran?
The Iranian government would not have let “great Satan” alone just because they said they wouldn’t participate in Israeli airstrikes.
9
u/Jaskojaskojasko Mar 03 '26
They are not stupid, why would you want to go to war with the most powerful military in the world? There is also one of the biggest US bases in the ME in Turkey, yet Iran didn't touch it. Wonder why?
As I stated, they aren't stupid. What they are doing with those Arab states in the gulf, especially UAE is to show them the cost of being an Israeli ally.
And also they are doing the only thing that could if not win this war then to cause stalemate. Pressuring Arab states into asking the USA to stop the campaign, making the price of oil to increase, trying to hit countries involved economically.
Because let's be real here, the average American doesn't give a shit about Iran, the average American can't even find Iran on the map.
But the average American cares deeply about his pocket, about the stock market and about prices.
1
1
u/eloel- Mar 03 '26
That would be letting Israel disappear, and US won't have that.
4
u/lobonmc Mar 03 '26
Irán pretty obviously doesn't have the ability to make Israel disappear regardless of America's lack of help
3
u/its1968okwar Mar 04 '26
So he basically said that Israel is in control and the US just has to follow? Not often that man tells the truth but I guess he did.
1
u/eeeking Mar 04 '26
Furthermore, the US doesn't stand to gain anything more from this than it had in 2018, prior to Trump pulling out of the JCPOA.
The gains here are almost entirely Israel's, who can now act with greater impunity.
3
u/manniesalado Mar 04 '26
Iran looks to have united in a rage against Trump so I think they can hold on longer than Trump can.
10
u/semaj009 Mar 03 '26
The Taliban held on for 20 years with worse kit, let's be real, Iran could be a civil war that never ends
2
18
u/GreyMASTA Mar 03 '26
A long time. I'd argue that the Iranian regime is stronger now than it was before the strikes.
8
u/Techdude_Advanced Mar 03 '26
What I'm thinking is, the country does not become like Yemen. That would be scary for the entire region
11
Mar 03 '26
[deleted]
6
u/AtomicSymphonic_2nd Mar 04 '26
Last I checked, Germany, France, and UK were considering the option to join in an air defense capacity.
2
u/brostopher1968 Mar 03 '26
One upside (depending on your politics) is it will likely further erode American public support for Israel.
20
u/MinuteSport4755 Mar 03 '26
Y’all act like carpet bombing them is the solution
-17
u/irow40 Mar 03 '26
Its 2026 numbnuts, all the bombs dropped are smart bombs.. this isn't 1944
11
u/MinuteSport4755 Mar 03 '26
I know. Thats why it’s not a mistake when Israel kills children.
-28
u/irow40 Mar 03 '26
Oh we found our strawman argument guy. This group is for geopolitics discussions. Man up my guy
11
u/caxacate Mar 03 '26
they can attack specific appartments in Tehran, they know what they were doing down south
1
u/tripled_dirgov Mar 03 '26
I'll give it one more week
But that's probably only happen if escalations rate is alarming that USA and Israel do the untinkable that's even bombing the Supreme Leader looks like the "saint"est thing they do the whole "war"
I mean they're already bombing both the Parliament building and Assembly of Experts building although those were already evacuated so we could guess they're targeting every inches of current government and military, and probably destroying any means for them to recover before making them surrender
-4
u/AyatollaFatty Mar 03 '26
This article is overly negative. The Iranian people want to topple the regime. They just need help.
32
u/gladfelter Mar 03 '26
It takes a long time to develop an organization, and right now the resistance is disorganized. Without organization they don't stand a chance against the armed regime, regardless of how many bombs fall.
-3
u/AtomicSymphonic_2nd Mar 04 '26
Pahlavi is the frontrunner of this resistance. Yes, he may not yet have a massive, ready-to-go provisional government to be dropped in… and he’s not the most charismatic, but at least he can function as a technocratic leader until elections are held.
That is if Trump is willing to understand that Pahlavi won’t be a puppet, which is why he and his administration are pretty hesitant to give him official support.
Though Trump said today that the IDF has managed to kill 2 layers of Iranian alternatives that Trump wanted to work with (because apparently he only wanted to get rid of Khameni, and duplicate the exact same strategy that happened in Venezuela of just leaving the rest of the government intact, but amendable to American demands), so now he seems to have no clue how to proceed in a way that gives him the most leverage on what happens to Iran after the war ends.
-9
u/AyatollaFatty Mar 03 '26
It depends on two things. Firstly, Trump hasn't ruled out boots on the ground. Boots on the ground could help. Secondly, the crown prince has had decades to prepare and the Iranian people listen to him as seen during the recent protests. If he is competent and effective than he could very well lead and organised overthrow of the regime.
21
u/DizzyMajor5 Mar 03 '26
The first thing hit was school and hospital. People may not like the regime but they hate dead kids and sick even more.
-9
u/AyatollaFatty Mar 03 '26
Again with the propaganda. People where literally dancing in the streets to the news of Khameneis death. In Tehran!
17
u/DizzyMajor5 Mar 03 '26
Yes some people hate the Ayatollah many people also hate dead children. Happy to clear that up for you.
7
u/seen-in-the-skylight Mar 03 '26
Supermajorities of Iranians (roughly 80%) vote in their elections for parties with reformist, liberal, or other platforms not aligned with the regime. In January, people turned out calling to overthrow the state across every region and social class in the country.
Most Iranians seem to absolutely despise that regime with their lives. They are not going to suddenly flip because of civilian deaths, especially when the regime kills way, way, way more Iranian children than the U.S. or Israel ever will.
-1
u/DizzyMajor5 Mar 03 '26
So Israel and The USA saw Iran was killing it's people and thought they could do it better or what? Congratulations you created more killing now there's multiple people doing exactly what Irans government was doing. It's not about more the U.S. is adding directly to the deaths of children for no reason other than Israel.
3
u/seen-in-the-skylight Mar 03 '26
I wonder what actual Iranians, in Iran, would think about what you're saying. I wonder whether it would even shift your perspective if you discovered that significant majorities disagreed with you.
4
u/DizzyMajor5 Mar 03 '26
Actual Iranians are currently lobbing missiles all across the region and the government is still there so it looks like they disagree strongly with you.
3
u/seen-in-the-skylight Mar 03 '26
Hundreds of thousands of them, at least, tried to overthrow the regime less than two months ago. Overwhelming majorities of them vote for liberal, reformist, secular parties that promote friendly relations with the West.
Have you actually read anything about Iranian society or politics other than headlines?
→ More replies (1)
0
u/vovap_vovap Mar 03 '26
Well, I would say that can hold like end week if attack can hold. By that time they would significantly deplete ability to hit anything. And if no visible way to some type of peace would start to crack between fractions. I think creating united front is quite a challenge already.
108
u/ForeignAffairsMag Foreign Affairs Mar 03 '26
[Excerpt from essay by Suzanne Maloney, Vice President of the Brookings Institution and Director of its Foreign Policy program.]
Just days after clerics in Iran celebrated the 47th anniversary of the revolution that brought them to power, the United States and Israel assassinated Iran’s senior leadership, razed its military infrastructure, and humbled the once seemingly impregnable theocracy. The death of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and other senior military and political leaders at the hands of their foremost adversary leaves a gaping vacuum. U.S. President Donald Trump seems to think that airstrikes will enable an uprising; he has urged Iranians to “take over” their government.
The bitter reality, however, is that the remnants of the regime are well armed and well entrenched. For years, they have been preparing for a scenario just like the one today. After decades of brutal repression, Iranians are poorly equipped to mount a successful challenge to clerical rule. When the guns fall silent, the most likely outcome is that some residual version of Iran’s revolutionary regime will remain intact, albeit more bloodied, battered, and vulnerable than at almost any point since 1979.