Best Of

It seems scarcely believable that a US administration is again contemplating violent regime change in a country beginning with Ira*, let alone one supposedly committed to avoiding forever wars, but here we are.

If for whatever combination of reasons the theocracy ruling Iran ends up falling, the question is what comes in its place. Evidence from the fall of secular Middle Eastern regimes is that the Islamists come next. But evidence from the fall of Islamist regimes is rather scant, because the only example I can think of if Afghanistan, and in that case the Islamists a. were more popular than the Iranian Ayatollahs and b. came back.

So we need to think creatively. Now’s not really the time for liberal democracy, it’s on the decline everywhere, so what else? My betting would be either a populist Persian nationalist regime (similar to what happened briefly in Myanmar, what happened in Russia, and what’s seemingly happening albeit with religious overtones in India) or a kleptocracy. Persian nationalism I can imagine being relatively better for the West but rather bad if you’re an Iranian Kurd or Arab, and probably not exactly best mates with Israel either.

The US may join in with bombing Iran, but Trump is never going to commit ground troops. (Nor am I clear from where a ground invasion could even happen!) Bombing alone does not have a great track record of producing regime change. It's not impossible, but I think the more likely outcome is lots of dead people and a degraded infrastructure in Iran, but the regime continues. Trump/Bibi declare they've won and stop at some point. Or maybe there's some sort of negotiated settlement (which Trump clearly wants): where Iran promises to give up its nuclear programme.

It’s very unclear what the “face saving” way out is for Iran. Trump is offering them a humiliating defeat

Trump, above perhaps all else, is terrible at negotiating deals. He just wants something so he can claim he won, but he doesn't seem to particularly notice what he's agreed to. I think there's potential for the Iranian government to negotiate something that is not existential for them and gives Trump enough.

Or there would be if they were just dealing with Trump, but they're dealing with Bibi, who is like Trump in some ways, but actually clever. Netanyahu is demanding much more and is not interested in some quick win pretend deal.

However, what can Israel and the US do? They can win the air war, destroy Iran's military, bomb the country... and then what? What do they do if/when Iran doesn't surrender? Has Bibi over-reached?

I don't know what will happen. (If I did, I'd make a lot of money in the markets.) But it seems to me that there's a biiiiiiiiiiiig gap between this "regime change" rhetoric and regime change actually occurring.

I'd guess we have to look at the Israeli model of pseudo-control. I.e what they've done in Syria & a little in Lebanon. De fang the country by removing all air defences and long range weapons then periodically bomb the resistance and assassinate leaders. They don't care about a stable countries, only ones that are easily dominated.

Seems Trump will accept peace if the ballistic missiles are gone and the nuclear programme eliminated. Doubt any country could accept this so this one could go for a while.

PMQs.

PBers should watch Times Radio's DPMQs Unpacked which today included Starmer's PPS and PMQs-prepper Chris Ward who gave some fascinating insights, not least that Labour now sees PMQs as a glorified press conference to the nation rather than a parliamentary battle with an increasingly irrelevant Opposition over who will win the next election.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=df1C4nz0-sc

Hasn't that been the case for ages. PMs have increasingly ignored all questions and just want to get their soundbite in. And opposition's plan is to set some trap relating to some inconvenient or obscure factoid and how they jump into it by waving it away with some BS, which was Boris speciality.

Even then it was Boris vs Corbyn, or Starmer vs Boris about who should be next leader. That has now changed, it is said, because Labour does not regard Kemi or her party as viable contenders.

Sounds rather hubristic to me. But yes, Labour do seem to be rightly or wrongly focussing on Reform and Farage.

Mistakenly imo because if Labour does harm Reform, the main beneficiary is the Conservative Party.

I don't think Iranians are too fond of the mad Mullahs but having Mossad/CIA trying to reinstall the old Shah's son isn't going to go down too well either tbh

Is there some meaningful chunk of Iranian public opinion that's nostalgic for the Shah or are they only trying to do this because they don't have any other ideas?

Do we have any PBers with any such knowledge ?

I have no idea. It's obvious there's widespread opposition to the regime, but no obvious group that leads it, as this article suggests:
https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/who-makes-up-irans-fragmented-opposition-2025-06-18/

The lesson of not a few revolutions is that the most ruthless and organised group comes out on top, irrespective of majority support.
And that can be a very messy and protracted process.

On Iran FPT, copied because I think it's a useful, if flawed, view of the Iranian public's views:

Polling in Iran is obviously difficult, but there's the following:
https://gamaan.org/2022/03/31/political-systems-survey-english/

"The results show that 88% of the population consider “having a democratic political system” to be “fairly good” or “very good”. On the other hand, while 67% of the population consider “having a system governed by religious law” to be “fairly bad” or “very bad”, around 28% evaluate such a system as “good”. Moreover, 76% of the population are against “having the army rule”.

When asked about their preferred regime type, 34% chose a “secular republic”, 22% the “Islamic republic”, 19% a “constitutional monarchy”, and 3% an “absolute monarchy”. Also, over 21% declared that they are “not sufficiently informed to answer this question”. "

But although I'd take such a poll with caution, it's interesting that support for the pro-monarchy options equal that for an Islamic republic; but both are beaten by a secular republic.

Also:

"An opinion survey involving 158,000 people in Iran showed that more than 80 percent of respondents reject the Islamic Republic and prefer a democratic government."

https://www.iranintl.com/en/202302036145

I don't think Iranians are too fond of the mad Mullahs but having Mossad/CIA trying to reinstall the old Shah's son isn't going to go down too well either tbh

Is there some meaningful chunk of Iranian public opinion that's nostalgic for the Shah or are they only trying to do this because they don't have any other ideas?

Part of A, part of B.

Lots of people in Russia and the wider Soviet Union, particularly older people, look back at the days of the Soviet Union with fondness, as times were better back then. Even if they were not. In the same way, some of us on here look back at the past with a fondness, forgetting what we thought of those times back then.

So yes, there are some people in Iran who look back on the times of the Shah with something akin to fondness.

Polling in Iran is obviously difficult, but there's the following:
https://gamaan.org/2022/03/31/political-systems-survey-english/

"The results show that 88% of the population consider “having a democratic political system” to be “fairly good” or “very good”. On the other hand, while 67% of the population consider “having a system governed by religious law” to be “fairly bad” or “very bad”, around 28% evaluate such a system as “good”. Moreover, 76% of the population are against “having the army rule”.

When asked about their preferred regime type, 34% chose a “secular republic”, 22% the “Islamic republic”, 19% a “constitutional monarchy”, and 3% an “absolute monarchy”. Also, over 21% declared that they are “not sufficiently informed to answer this question”. "

But although I'd take such a poll with caution, it's interesting that support for the pro-monarchy options equal that for an Islamic republic; but both are beaten by a secular republic.