NEWNow you can listen to Fox News articles!
What will the Iranian government be like after this military conflict? This question is asked in all media. And, we are told, it could be a disaster, depending on who or what replaces the current Islamic dictatorship.
Well, this is interesting.
So I'll answer this seemingly complicated question: We have no idea what it will be like. Indeed, since we do not wish to engage in any kind of postwar “democratic project,” how can we know?
We have declared to the Iranian people that once most of the hostilities have ended, it is up to them to overthrow the government. And, logically, it will be up to them to determine what will replace it, especially if we have no intention of getting involved in a post-war project.
Of course, hostility toward “democracy projects” largely stems from our experience in Iraq, where the word “democracy” was constantly used as a justification for waging that war. It didn't go well and we suffered significant casualties.
The question before us is not what a postwar Iran will look like, but whether it is in our best interest, for various reasons, to be involved in shaping that outcome and, if so, to what extent and in what way.
But each case is unique. Not all conflicts are Iraq. After World War II, we played an important role in establishing governments in Japan and Western Europe. We continued with the Marshall Plan in Europe and that effort was successful.
But if one is going to ask about post-war Iran – if we have no intention of playing a role in establishing a new government, even if non-participation has consequences – then the question is not serious or is unknowable. Most of those who request it do so out of concern for what may happen.
THE UNITED STATES ATTACKS IRAN AGAIN. HAS WASHINGTON PLANNED WHAT'S COMING NEXT?
The most important question, it seems to me, is whether we will play any role in postwar Iran, especially if the nature of the new government is a matter of grave consequences. Clearly it is. I am not advocating a “democracy project”, but suggesting that a hands-off approach can be problematic, if not disastrous.
The question before us, therefore, is not what a postwar Iran will look like, but whether it is in our best interest, for various reasons, to be involved in shaping that outcome and, if so, to what extent and in what way.
The truth is that if we do not intervene fully, we risk a repeat of the regime we have destroyed. There will undoubtedly remain remnants of the existing regime, or even a sizable population bent on sabotaging the establishment of a democratic or non-authoritarian government. If they are not disarmed, they are likely to succeed in a power struggle for control.
CLICK HERE TO REVIEW MORE FROM FOX NEWS
Furthermore, let's not pretend that China, Russia or Türkiye – and perhaps others – do not see our absence as an opportunity to influence or impose their will on Iran. In short, doing nothing would be a serious and potentially dangerous mistake.
I am concerned that not enough thought has been given to this, especially if our position is to leave the matter entirely in the hands of others. This does not mean that we should send troops to impose democracy in the country. But there are other options far below that.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
Once again, Iran is not Iraq. The Persian people share many, if not most, of our Western values. Persian culture has been among the most advanced of any civilization. Its roots are ancient and its history is marked by achievements in education, science and the arts.
Of course, the immediate issue at hand is the complete defeat of the regime that kidnapped the Iranian government, enslaved its people, and has been an existential threat to our country and the world for almost half a century. But we can walk and chew gum at the same time. The nature of a post-war Iranian government is a crucial question for both the Iranian people and our country, so that the battle we fight today is not in vain.
CLICK HERE FOR MORE FROM MARK LEVIN
