Council on Foreign Relations President Richard Haass recently published an article in Newsweek advocating that the United States adopt a policy of regime change in Tehran. The article has received quite a bit of attention including two posts on this blog; one by Flynt Leverett and Hillary Mann Leverett and another by Henry Prect.
Foreign Policy Blogger, Harvard University Professor and realist extraordinaire Stephen Walt has also weighed in against Haass’ position. Walt appears to have the same awful déjà vu feeling that the Leveretts expressed in their piece, as he compares Haass’ position to Kenneth Pollack’s intellectual justification for the invasion of Iraq in 2003.
In his post, titled “Nothing More Dangerous Than A Recovering ‘Realist’?,” Walt lays out three reasons why Haass’ position is misguided.
First, after acknowledging that “ousting regimes and replacing them with something better is easier said than done,” he assumes that anything would be preferable to what we have now. Maybe so, but our track record in Somalia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Central America, and elsewhere suggests that U.S. meddling often makes things worse. Like the liberal interventionists he has sometimes sparred with in the past, Haass simply cannot imagine leaving well enough alone, and letting Iran’s own people determine their own political future. A hands-off approach is not an endorsement of the clerics or the brutal behavior of the Revolutionary Guards; it is merely recognition that further meddling on our part might be counterproductive.
Second, as Richard Silverstein points out on his blog, Haass’ approach lacks patience. Repairing the troubled U.S.-Iran relationship cannot be accomplished in a month or even a year, and the kind of posturing and pressure that Haass is calling for is more likely to retard progress than advance it. Ordinary Iranians are already convinced that the United States has long interfered in their affairs for various nefarious purposes — and with some reason — and putting on the full-court press isn’t going to reduce those concerns. Indeed, it will surely exacerbate them.
Third, a policy of “regime change-lite” puts us one step closer to actual war. Haass is saying in effect that Iran’s government has no legitimacy or standing and that we ought to help bring it down. Attacking Iran is not a practical goal right now, but getting rid of the regime ought to be. So what happens when sanctions and speeches and ostracism don’t work, and Iran continues to develop its enrichment program? Wait another year or two, and Haass will find himself sounding even more like Kenneth Pollack, telling us that he has ever so reluctantly concluded that we have no choice but to bomb.
The entire post can be read here.
– Ben Katcher
