Thursday, February 09, 2006

Regime Change In Iran?

The United States and Britain are discussing democratic regime change for Iran:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - American and British diplomats held talks this week on ways to promote democracy in Iran amid concern that Tehran is skillfully exploiting a row over it’s nuclear ambitions to fan anti-Western hostility, U.S. officials said on Wednesday.

The discussions in Washington involved Undersecretary of State Nicholas Burns, who is coordinating U.S. policy on Iran, and British diplomats who are serving or have served in Tehran, the officials and diplomats told Reuters...

American and British officials are leaning to the view that the West must create links with Iranians who oppose the Islamic cleric-led government of President Mohammad Ahmadinejad and are receptive to democracy.

“Obviously there is increasing interest both on Capitol Hill and in the administration in seeing what actually could be done to strengthen civil society in Iran,” said a British diplomat.


Never forget about that military option. I've commented on the invasion/regime change of Iran before (here, here, and here), and most of my thoughts on the issue remain the same.

Publius offers this insight:

This is very good news for both the international community as well as the Iranian people. The benefit for us is that we won’t have to worry about a hostile Iran with nuclear weapons, and the benefit for them is that they get to live in a free society. It works both ways. The only criticism I have of this policy is that it should have been implemented much, much sooner.


This seems very valid, though I don't think an invasion of Iran pursuant of a regime change --especially in light of the GWOT, Afghanistan, and Iraq-- was very plausible in recent years. That being said, the threat of a nuclear Iran looms larger everday, and a more serious consideration of the invasion and regime change of Iran is very necessary.