An Iranian soldier stands guard during a ceremony marking the 37th anniversary of the Islamic Revolution in Tehran, February 2016.
Raheb Homavandi / REUTERS

As the Iranian nuclear agreement turns two years old this month, Iran hawks are once again advocating their preferred solution to the Iranian problem: regime change. Last month, Politico reported that shortly after President Trump’s inauguration, the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a conservative Washington think tank, had submitted a memo to the National Security Council arguing that “Iran is susceptible to a strategy of coerced democratization because it lacks popular support and relies on fear to sustain its power […] The very structure of the regime invites instability, crisis and possibly collapse.” As the Council on Foreign Relations’ Ray Takeyh put it in another example, “The task for the administration now is to study ways that we can take advantage of Iran’s looming crisis to potentially displace one of America’s most entrenched adversaries.” U.S. President Donald Trump and his team’s hostility toward the Islamic Republic has surely encouraged such hawks, with U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson recently indicating that peaceful regime change is a policy option that his team may pursue. Regime change, however, simply isn’t feasible unless the United States is ready to commit, politically and militarily, to another Middle Eastern

To read the full article

  • MADISON SCHRAMM (@) is a Ph.D. candidate in the Department of Government at Georgetown University. ARIANE M. TABATABAI is Director of Curriculum at Georgetown University’s School of Foreign Service in the Security Studies Program.
  • More By Madison Schramm
  • More By Ariane M. Tabatabai