Iran: Staying OUT is what feeds anti-Americanism

Our staying out of Iran is what actually feeds the anti-Americanism in Iran. It is what fosters most of the anti-American conspiracy theories – the kind of theories that abound in countries that are affected greatly by American whims. It has led many Iranians – far more than most Americans realize — to say such things as ‘America is supporting this Ayatollah regime, America is protecting it even while it pretends to be against it’.

The same goes for when we intervene a little bit but then leaving the regime intact. Why do we leave this vicious enemy regime intact when we don’t have to? It’s assumed we must have some hidden interest, such as oil, in doing this.

The same goes for making a deal with the regime when we have it on the ropes, instead of getting rid of it. The Witkoff maneuver, so to speak. The deal is seen as America propping up the regime. (Which sometimes the deal in fact does.) For what purpose? Iranians can only assume it is some nefarious hidden purpose. The rumor mills runs wild on the possibilities.

* * *

Little can Iranians imagine the actual reason why we have done this for nearly half a century. The actual reason is too simple, and too immaterial: it is an ideological reason, one that we Americans have embedded deeply into our psychology.

The regnant ideology states that we must not change an enemy regime. Because that would supposedly be selfish, imperialist, counterproductive, destabilizing, etc etc etc.

That is why we don’t do it.

We have made it impossible, in our domestic political terms of debate, to suggest changing an enemy regime. From Bush II to Obama to Trump I to Vance et al, we have declared “regime change” a thing to be avoided at all costs. Each president, as candidate, demonized the opposite party for have done “regime change”. Then they came to power, and when they found they out that they had to do a regime change anyway, they would deny that they were doing it, would reach for other eccentric justifications for it, and would contort their actual regime change policies in ways that would usually defeat the purpose.

This is what they did in refusing the complete the job in Afghanistan in 2001, moving on to a Bush family vendetta in Iraq instead; and then trying to quickly move on elsewhere again – only to have to come back at much higher cost in Afghanistan and Iraq, once we had left space for a new rebellion to grow against the fledgling new regime. ‘Just go in and get rid of the bad guy and quickly get out’, the Rumsfeld people said back then. It is duplicated today in the ‘in and out’ mantra of Hegseth and Vance. It is irresponsible rhetoric in both cases.

In the process of each party demonizing the other party about regime change, we have demonized the very phrase, “regime change”. We have trained our political reflexes in both parties on running away from opportunities to change an enemy regime. We have literally psyched ourselves out of thinking and talking about it and doing it in a rational manner.

To be sure, changing friendly regimes is not as badly demonized. Progressives are proud of doing that. They say it proves they aren’t “hypocrites”, as if that were a good reason for changing a regime and destroying an ally. Biden and Schumer tried, openly and proudly, to bring down the long-stable Netanyahu government in Israel. Obama, just after he determinedly refused to help the Iranian people when they were trying to overthrow the evil regime in Tehran, turned around and helped destroy the long-stable, friendly, peace-loving regimes of Mubarak in Egypt and Ben Ali in Tunisia. This too is a pattern; one that our dominant mainstream media never examined and never demonized.

In the mainstream media-academia discourse space, it is the bringing down of an enemy regime that is strictly forbidden. The taboo seems almost unshakable.

It has become so popular to invoke this taboo, so much of a cheap winning line, that much even of the MAGA space has joined in upholding the taboo.

But not Trump himself. He honestly blurted out, in the course of the present Iran saga: “Why not regime change?”

* * *

Iranians have a hard time bringing themselves to credit something so seemingly silly as a psychological or ideological explanation – that we have spooked ourselves out of thinking logically about regime change. When America refuses to pursue its own obvious interest in changing a regime that is dangerous to it, they tell themselves that it must be some serious, real, hidden material interest that we actually must have in keeping that regime around.

They are fooling themselves. The true explanation is the silly ideological one.

It really isn’t some rational hidden interest that is determining this. It’s the irrational terms of our political debate here.

This is the reality. It can be verified easily: by looking at all the public discussion on the matter for the last several decades, ever since the Bush campaign against Gore made it a slogan to be more humble and not do “regime change”. It is worth recalling that it did this in deference to Putin, whose entourage was constantly accusing America of plotting a “color revolution” in Russia.

This is the real reason why we are running away from regime change.

But Iranians don’t look at this real data of our perverted terms of public debate on the subject. Instead, every time we draw back from changing the regime in Iran, large numbers of Iranians draw a dangerous false conclusion that seems obvious to them: that America must want to keep the existing enemy regime in power.

They may come up with all kinds of possible specific reasons why America is doing this — for the sake of maintaining stability, or for keeping the oil flowing, or for whatever other reasons they might imagine. But the conclusion is the same.

It’s understandable that they will think this. Our policy of accepting the regime seems incomprehensible otherwise. Americans can’t be so stupid as to keep preventing themselves for 45 years from winning.

And there are always a few foolish Americans around who seem to validate the conspiracy theory. Americans who do argue in the media for keeping the regime in power; argue irrationally, but argue with good support in the institutions of the media and academia. It is all too easy for Iranians, already suspicious enough of America’s incomprehensible policy, to think that these people are simply letting the cat out of the bag.

* * *

And so we conclude where we started: It’s America’s staying out and tolerating the Islamist regime that feeds the anti-American conspiracy theories in Iran. That should be obvious by now.

It is not a new problem. It was the case from the beginning. Already in 1980, an Iranian liberal intellectual told me that he and his friends thought the Islamists came to power and were able to stay there because America wanted it that way. He adduced evidence from his experience to show that practically no one in Iran really wants the Islamist regime; leading him to think it was only America’s intention that could explain how the regime holds on. It was perfect conspiracy theory reasoning.

The conspiracy theorizing will end only when one thing happens: When America finally gets out of its funk, reclaims its dignity, and acts to change the regime.

In other words, when America acts with all the necessary power in a way that is in its own obvious interest and the global interest. When America once again takes up its responsibility as the core superpower of the world. When America sees to it that the Islamist regime ends and is replaced by a regime tolerable to the Iranian people and to the world.

When that happens, no rational person will suspect America of a hidden motive. Because the open motives will finally make sense. We will be seen again for who we are, because we will have finally started acting again for who we are.

People may like us or dislike us for it. The evidence at this point is that the vast bulk of them will like us for it, especially the people in Iran.