No regime change in Iran: Trump did the smart thing, but for many Iranians, specially women, it's a loss of historic opportunity

In 2017, at the height of US-Iran tensions that led to talk of an American invasion of Iran and a possible regime change, Indian journalist Nadim Siraj travelled to the Islamic Republic. He went in as a tourist, but the intention was to see Iran up, close and personal. The result was a book titled Secret Notes from Iran: Diary of an Undercover Journalist. Nadim's trip happened during President Donald Trump's first term in office, in which he pulled the US out of the Iran nuclear deal. At the end of the current Iran-Israel war, Trump hinted that the US is not looking for an Iranian regime change. For many Iranians inside and abroad, the Iran-Israel war had brought the country tantalisingly close to a regime change. But that dream is dashed, for now. I asked Nadim why Trump took this stance, rather unusual for the US, which is known for artificial regime changes. He shared what could be the rationale for Trump, and what could have happened if a regime change had indeed happened.

Why would the Americans want to change regime in Iran?

Part of the answer lies in a major, yet under-reported, grouse of the US : Iran’s defiance of the petrodollar, the system by which petroleum and gas resources are sold in exchange for US dollars. "Iran not only sells its crude oil in non-dollar currencies, it successfully runs an oil exchange – the Iranian Oil Bourse on Kish Island – where the US dollar is not even listed as a currency," Nadim said.

“Since the Iranian regime is at the forefront of a growing de-dollarisation drive, the US wants it to go – for vested economic interests, not to gift Iranians a more sane and liberal government with no nuclear ambitions.”

Trump has essentially gone against this long-standing US interest, at least for now. “Trump holding back prospects of a regime change turns out to be a sensible move,” Nadim shared.

Lack of regime change is a loss of opportunity for Iranian women

During his Iran trip, Nadim found that a considerable section of the Iranian public deeply disliked the cleric-run regime, mainly because of its anti-women policies. “They are not just young women who miss basic freedoms, but even their young male peers. I saw the same wave across Tehran, Shiraz, Isfahan, and along the Strait of Hormuz. For them, the freeze in a regime-change attempt is a golden opportunity lost,” he said.

Even though they don’t like the idea of a war, Nadim said, “they feel so stifled by the lack of basic rights that they don’t mind an external power doing the job of getting rid of the clerics and bringing a liberal group to power.”

“It is a shame that since coming to power in 1979, the Ayatollah’s ‘kingdom’ has continuously antagonised this section of the Iranian public,” Nadim said. “They will happily welcome the Shah’s family at the helm or a democracy-style political system.”

What would have happened if the Iranian regime was changed?

Recent history may be a guide for answering this: Not a single US-supported regime change resulted in a positive outcome for the affected country’s society, economy, and politics. "Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and Syria are eye-opening examples, where US-backed interventions didn’t make the lives of the public any better," Nadim noted.

So, did Trump do the smart thing by declaring US is not interested in Iran regime change?

In Nadim's view, Trump’s decision to stop short of a regime change is a welcome relief for both Iran and the wider world, as it would have been unfortunate if a foreign power toppled its government without factoring in the heavy cost on the ground.

A regime change would have split Iran and led to power vacuum and chaos

Iran would have been thrown into the middle of a gigantic political and economic storm had there been a regime change, said Nadim.

"For decades, the Ayatollah’s oppressive regime has systematically ensured there’s no major naturally evolved, genuinely domestic political alternative in the country. So, if the clerics are ousted, a liberal yet completely US-backed puppet group would be installed in Tehran – accountable only to the West, not to the public.

“And because of its lack of accountability to the Iranian public, the externally installed government won’t be able to fix the economic chaos and political instability that will follow the regime change.”

A regime change would have caused severe economic turbulence in Iran, whose economy is reeling under pressure from over 3,000 sanctions slapped by the US and its allies. Hardened by decades of these sanctions, Iran built for itself a robust economy that doesn’t rely on foreign wealth or institutions such as the World Bank and IMF. That self-reliant, independent economy would have been severely damaged by a regime change.

Yet, when it comes to gender rights, a regime change would have come as an immense relief for Iranian women who are stifled by outdated patriarchal rules and regulations since they were rolled out in 1981, Nadim noted.