Don't fall for ‘regime change' myths — US power is a force for good

MAGA celebrity Charlie Kirk, attempting to balance support for the administration and appeal to online isolationists, maintains that the 'regime change war machine in DC' is pushing President Donald Trump into 'an all-out blitz on Iran.'
He's not alone.
The question is, what does 'regime change war' mean in simple language?
Does it mean, as 'non-interventionists' suggest, invading Iran and imposing American democracy on its people?
Because, if so, there's virtually no one pushing for that.
And I only add 'virtually' in case I somehow missed a person of consequence, though it is highly unlikely.
Trump, from all indications, is using the threat of the US joining the war to push Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei into surrender.
Though taking out Iran's nuclear program would end the war quicker.
Or does opposing 'regime change' mean actively thwarting the Iranian opposition from overthrowing the fundamentalists who took power via a violent revolution in 1979?
Does it mean ensuring that Khamenei survives, because a resulting messy post-war fight for power is worse?
It seems the latter. Kirk says, 'There is a vast difference between a popular revolution and foreign-imposed, abrupt, violent regime change.'
Surely, he doesn't believe the mullahs will gradually propose liberal reforms for the people and become peaceful neighbors on their own?
If Iranians revolt, it's because of the violence now being imposed on the regime.
The ideological overcorrection due to the failures of Iraq's rebuild now has non-interventionists accusing anyone who proposes that it's better if anti-American dictatorships fall of being 'neocons,' perhaps the most useless phrase in our political lexicon.
Forget for a moment that Iran has been an enemy of the United States for 45 years. Not an existential threat, no, but a deadly one, nonetheless.
The non-interventionist is not bothered by the Islamic Republic's murder of American citizens, or its crusade for nuclear weapons — until Khamenei drops Revolutionary Guard paratroopers into San Diego, they don't think it's any of our business.
Because of this overcorrection, non-interventionists, both left and right, simply can't fathom that exertion of American power could ever be a good thing.
They now create revisionist histories blaming the United States for virtually all the world's ills.
'It was Britain, and (funded by) the United States that overthrew a democratically elected Iranian Prime Minister Mossedegh in 1953 by using hired mobs in a coup that lead [sic] to the installation of the Shah Pahlavi's 27 year reign of authoritarianism and human rights abuses,' wrote Trump-supporting comedian Rob Schneider in a viral post. 'All in the name of Iranian Oil.'
'Remember,' Kirk told his followers, 'Iran is partially controlled by mullahs today because we designed regime change to put the shah back in power.'
Boy, I wish people would stay off Wikipedia for a while, because this fantasy, spread by blame-America leftists for decades, is now being picked up by the right.
The notion that Iran would have been a thriving democracy in 1954 had the US not gotten involved — and our involvement is way overstated — is more ridiculous than blaming us for the 1979 revolution nearly 30 years later.
It is far more likely Iran would have emerged as a Soviet client state, destined to fall anyway when fundamentalists swept the Islamic world in the 1970s.
Realpolitik is ugly. Non-interventionists love to harp on the deadly byproducts of our intrusions into world affairs — and there have been many — without ever grappling with the counterfactual outcome.
For instance, the contention that 'regime change' never works is incredibly simplistic.
Regime change was a success in Germany and Japan. And I bet the Hungarians, Czechs, Slovenians, Estonians and many others were all on board for regime change, as well.
None of that happens without US intervention in conflicts, cold and hot, around the world.
People will rightly point out that Europe is not the Middle East. In that regard, Iran is not Iraq or Syria.
Schneider contends that '90 million people will fight for their survival again,' as they did in Iraq.
Sure, some Iranians might fight to preserve the brutal Islamic regime.
Many would not.
The real fear should be that a civil war would break out if Iran's regime collapses.
There are numerous minorities in Iran, but Persian national consciousness goes back to antiquity.
If the mullahs fall, a majority of Iranians may turn out to fight for a better life free of needless conflicts with the West.
It may go south.
It may not.
I have no idea how that turns out, and neither do you.
Except for one thing: Whoever wins won't have nuclear weapons.
David Harsanyi is a senior writer at the Washington Examiner.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Boston Globe

16 minutes ago

• Boston Globe

Israel and Iran launch strikes a week into their war as new diplomatic effort takes shape

Britain's foreign secretary said he met at the White House with U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and envoy Steve Witkoff to discuss the potential for a deal that could cool the conflict. Advertisement Israel said it conducted airstrikes into Friday morning in Iran with more than 60 aircraft hitting what it said were industrial sites to manufacture missiles. It did not elaborate on the locations. It also said it hit the headquarters of Iran's Organization of Defensive Innovation and Research, known by its acronym in Farsi, SPND. The U.S. in the past has linked that agency to alleged Iranian research and testing tied to the possible development of nuclear explosive devices. Advertisement Israeli airstrikes reached into the city of Rasht on the Caspian Sea early Friday, Iranian media reported. The Israeli military had warned the public to flee the area around Rasht's Industrial City, southwest of the city's downtown. But with Iran's internet shut off to the outside world, it's unclear just how many people could see the message. In Israel, the paramedic service Magen David Adom said missiles struck a residential area in southern Israel causing damage to buildings, including one six-story building. They have provided medical treatment to five people with minor injuries such as bruises, smoke inhalation, and anxiety, it said. This comes a day after at least 80 patients and medical workers were wounded in a strike on the Soroka Medical Center in the southern city of Beersheba. On Thursday, Israel's defense minister threatened Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei after the Iranian missile crashed into the hospital. Israel's military 'has been instructed and knows that in order to achieve all of its goals, this man absolutely should not continue to exist,' Defense Minister Israel Katz said. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said he trusted that Trump would 'do what's best for America.' Speaking from the rubble and shattered glass around the hospital, he added: 'I can tell you that they're already helping a lot.' The war between Israel and Iran erupted June 13 with Israeli airstrikes targeting nuclear and military sites, top generals and nuclear scientists. At least 657 people, including 263 civilians, have been killed in Iran and more than 2,000 wounded, according to a Washington-based Iranian human rights group. Iran has retaliated by firing 450 missiles and 1,000 drones at Israel, according to Israeli army estimates. Most have been shot down by Israel's multitiered air defenses, but at least 24 people in Israel have been killed and hundreds wounded. Advertisement Iran has long maintained its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes. But it is the only non-nuclear-weapon state to enrich uranium up to 60%, a short, technical step away from weapons-grade levels of 90%. Israel is widely believed to be the only Middle Eastern country with a nuclear weapons program but has never acknowledged it. The Israeli air campaign has targeted Iran's enrichment site at Natanz, centrifuge workshops around Tehran, a nuclear site in Isfahan and what the army assesses to be most of Iran's ballistic missile launchers. The destruction of those launchers has contributed to the steady decline in Iranian attacks since the start of the conflict. Gambrell from Dubai, United Arab Emirates.

New York Post

17 minutes ago

• New York Post

Carville says Dems ‘betrayed' working-class voters by not including them in ‘too-cool-for-school' coalition

Veteran Democratic Party strategist James Carville warned on Thursday that Democrats need to acknowledge how they took part in the decades-long betrayal of white, working-class voters. Since the Democratic Party's historic loss in November, many have been trying to chart a path forward to reclaiming their coalition. Advertisement While some have doubled-down on controversial far-left identity politics, some have worked to reclaim working-class men they alienated in recent years, particularly white men. On the Politics War Room podcast, hosts Carville and Al Hunt addressed a comment from a listener, who suggested that rather than being reconciliation, MAGA supporters deserve to be 'beaten badly at the voting booth and then told just to suck it up.' 'Oh God, who doesn't have that instinct?' Carville responded, but nonetheless warned that politics comes down to winning elections, and that means persuading voters. 'It is not the most satisfying way, but what in the end are we trying to do? We're trying to do one thing, win elections.' He proceeded to warn against the 'temptation that says 'I can't believe how godd–n stupid you were.' Advertisement 3 Strategist James Carville urged Democrats to reconnect with working-class white voters in order to win elections. Getty Images While he said he has no temptation for the 'corporate a—wipes' who voted for Trump to become richer, the strategist nicknamed the Ragin' Cajun expressed some sympathy for working-class whites he says have been betrayed by both parties. 'I have an iota of sympathy for somebody whose life hadn't turned out right,' he said. 'The brilliant thing about MAGA is it gives you an explanation other than yourself of why your life didn't turn out the way you wanted it, and we should say to these people 'We kind of understand what you were trying to say but you were betrayed.'' 3 Carville argued that white, working-class people were excluded from Democrats' 'too-cool-for-school' coalition. Getty Images Advertisement 3 Trump secured an Electoral College blowout over former VP Kamala Harris during the 2024 election. Christopher Sadowski 'Let's also face it, Democrats acted like these people didn't exist alright? They just did, and don't come back and say-We acted like working-class, particularly working-class non-college whites were not part of our too-cool-for-school group,' he continued. 'There were some real high-end people that kind of bought in to that s—.' He returned to the listener's question and reasserted his point that it's better to reconcile with working-class white voters, even if he understands being frustrated with them. 'I can see it, but the best thing to do is not punch him in the mouth but to say, 'You know man I could hear where you're coming from you just got betrayed, and we betrayed you somewhat, and we now have learned our lesson,'' he said.

CNN

21 minutes ago

• CNN

Xi and Putin present united front over Israel-Iran crisis, in veiled message to Trump

China and Russia positioning themselves as voices of reason, calling for de-escalation of a conflict the United States is contemplating on entering — these are the optics Xi Jinping and Vladimir Putin sought to project during a phone call on Thursday. As US President Donald Trump weighs joining Israel in attacking Iran, the fast-spiralling conflict between two sworn enemies in the Middle East has presented Beijing and Moscow another opportunity to cast themselves as an alternative to US power. In their call, Putin and Xi strongly condemned Israel's actions, calling them a breach of the UN Charter and other norms of international law, according to the Kremlin. (The elephant in the room, of course, is Russia's own violations of international law in its ongoing war against Ukraine — which Beijing has consistently refused to condemn.) In Beijing's readout, Xi struck a more measured tone and stopped short of explicitly condemning Israel — unlike his foreign minister, who did just that in a call with his Iranian counterpart last week. Instead, the Chinese leader urged the warring parties, 'especially Israel,' to cease fire as soon as possible to avoid further escalation and regional spillover. And notably, in a veiled message to Trump, Xi emphasized that 'major powers' that have a special influence on the parties to the conflict should work to 'cool the situation, not the opposite.' Beijing has long accused Washington of being a source of instability and tensions in the Middle East — and some Chinese scholars are now seizing on the Iran crisis to underscore that point. Liu Zhongmin, a Middle East expert at the Shanghai International Studies University, attributed the latest flareup to the uncertainty created by Trump's second presidency and the chaotic, opportunistic and transactional nature of his Middle East policy. '(Trump) has seriously undermined the authority and credibility of US policy in the Middle East, eroded America's leadership and image among its allies while also weakening its ability to threaten and deter regional adversaries,' Liu wrote in state media this week. Some Chinese online commentators have noted that Trump appears on the brink of pulling the US deeper into another so-called forever war in the Middle East. At the outset of his second term, officials close to Trump repeatedly stressed the need for Washington to redirect its focus and resources toward countering China's ambitions in the Indo-Pacific. Yet five months in, the wars in Ukraine and Gaza continue to rage on — and Trump is now weighing US involvement in the Israel-Iran conflict. Beijing has no interest in seeing an all-out war against Iran that could topple the regime. Under Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Iran has emerged as a formidable power in the Middle East and a vital counterweight to US dominance — just as China is working to expand its own diplomatic and economic footprint in the region. In 2023, Beijing helped broker a surprise rapprochement between arch-rivals Saudi Arabia and Iran – a deal that signaled its ambition to emerge as a new powerbroker in the region. China has long backed Iran through sustained oil imports and its seat on the UN Security Council. In recent years, the two countries have deepened their strategic ties, including holding joint naval exercises alongside Russia. Beijing welcomed Tehran into the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and BRICS – groupings led by China and Russia to challenge the US-led world order. Iran is also a critical node in China's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), its global infrastructure and investment drive. The country lies near the strategic Gwadar port — a key BRI outpost in Pakistan that gives China access to the Indian Ocean — and borders the Strait of Hormuz, a vital chokepoint for Chinese oil imports from the Persian Gulf. Like Russia, China has offered to be a potential mediator in the Israel-Iran conflict, casting its role as a peace broker and an alternative to US leadership. During his call with Putin, Xi laid out four broad proposals to de-escalate tensions, including resolving the Iran nuclear issue through dialogue and safeguarding civilians, according to the Chinese readout. Meanwhile, Xi's Foreign Minister Wang Yi has had a busy week on the phone, speaking with his counterparts in Iran, Israel, Egypt and Oman in a flurry of diplomatic outreach. Yet it remains unclear what Beijing is willing and able to do when it comes to actually mediating the conflict. In the early stages of Israel's war on Gaza, China made a similar offer and dispatched a special envoy to the region to promote peace talks — efforts that ultimately yielded little in terms of concrete results. Brokering peace in the Middle East is a tall order, especially for a country with little experience or expertise in mediating protracted, intractable conflicts – in a deeply divided region where it lacks a meaningful political or security presence. And in the one conflict where China does hold significant leverage — the war in Ukraine — Xi has offered diplomatic cover and much-needed economic support to help sustain Putin's war effort, even as China continues to cast itself as a neutral peace broker. Still, at a time when America's global leadership is under growing scrutiny, particularly in the eyes of the Global South, presenting itself as a voice of restraint in the Iran conflict may already count as a symbolic win for Beijing.