Unlock the White House Watch newsletter for free
Your guide to what Trump’s second term means for Washington, business and the world
Donald Trump is on a roll. After the success of his audacious move to capture the dictator of Venezuela, the US president has urged on anti-regime protesters in Iran and repeatedly touted American intervention to “rescue” them from a murderous crackdown by the authorities. He has been debating options with his advisers; military action now seems an imminent possibility. Yet US involvement in Iran carries even more risks, and has even more unknowable consequences, than in Venezuela.
For a president who returned to office with an America First mantra, Trump has been extraordinarily engaged with the rest of the world — not just in terms of policy but direct intervention. In recent weeks alone he has launched air strikes on Isis targets in Nigeria and Syria, even before turning his attentions to Venezuela and Iran, and issued threats against Cuba, Colombia and Greenland.
Making use of America’s military might has long been a temptation for White House occupants, especially when ratings are waning at home. Successive administrations have nursed a particular yearning for revenge for Iran’s humiliating seizure of American hostages in 1979 and attacks on US bases by Iran-sponsored groups.
Aside from his own ambitions, Trump is being egged on by US political and security hawks who see the tumult in Iran as an opportunity to drive a wedge into what they characterise as a “new axis of evil”, along with Russia, China and North Korea. After the deals the US claimed to have reached with Venezuela’s interim president Delcy Rodríguez on oil, gaining sway in Tehran would open up the prospect, too, of exerting far greater control over strategic oil flows.
Yet while Trump craves neat solutions — in which the US can briefly intercede, then walk away — the complexities of Iran defy such a simplistic approach. The regime does not appear to be cracking, the protests appear to be self-organised and there is no viable alternative leader who commands wide popular support waiting in the wings. As was the case with its operation in Venezuela, Washington appears to have no day two plan. It has got away with this, so far, but Tehran is not Caracas.
The end of the Iranian regime would bring jubilation to most Iranians and to the wider region. The death toll from the latest suppression of unrest is said to be in the thousands. But Iranians are not looking to replace the regime with chaos. The most likely institution to take over from the clerics is not a democratic government but the Revolutionary Guard — who are an integral part of the problem.
As it did briefly after the US and Israel bombing of Iran’s nuclear sites last summer, a foreign assault could cause Iranians to rally around the flag. Such is the despair of protesters that some are calling on Trump to intervene. Yet in a proud nation of 90mn, perceptions that regime change has been orchestrated by America could backfire.
Those in Washington who are goading Trump to act for reasons, in part, of historical revenge ignore the lessons of history at their peril. The roots of Iran’s Islamic revolution in 1979 can be traced back to the 1953 coup orchestrated by the US and the UK.
America’s Gulf allies, who have long seen Iran as a major threat, are frantically trying to mediate to avert a US military operation. Longtime enemies of Iran, they remain unconvinced that the regime is about to collapse and fear retaliation against US bases in the Middle East or a disruption of shipping lanes in the Strait of Hormuz. They have made clear they will not be involved in any US action. Trump would do well to listen to their caution.