Why regime change in Iran won't be pro-US

After leading the charge against Communism for 50 years, the Iraq war and the Afghan war, the last thing the American people want is war and occupation of Iran.

Under President Trump, the United States is waging economic war with a variety of nations - from Asian nations China and North Korea to Russia, Turkey and Pakistan. But nowhere is economic war more focused than against Iran.

The objective of sanctions against Iran, according to President Trump - and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu - is to get a new deal to replace the previous Iran Deal negotiated by Barrack Obama. However, should Iran Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei not comply, the Iranian economy will continue to erode and regime change will be inevitable.

Yet there is no chance Iran will erupt in civil war. Though the Iranian people are frustrated with the current regime, they are more terrified of instability than of Khamenei and the mullahs. Seeing instability in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria and Libya is the main reason for this.

Like in 1979, the next Iranian revolution will not be bloody. There are two alternatives, and neither of them would be pro-United States.

The first alternative is that Qassem Suleimani will become the next leader of Iran. Should Iranian protests grow and Ali Khamenei order the Quds force to fire on civilians, it is possible that Suleimani will claim Khamanei has lost his Islamic legitimacy and take control of Tehran. Should that occur, it would be a nightmare for the US, Israel and their allies.

The second alternative is that the Iranian army will engage in a military coup against the Iranian regime and take control of Tehran. Military coups are common in the Middle-East, with the most recent one taking place in Egypt in 2013.

In either scenario, relations between Russia and Iran would strengthen and the US would not be able to make inroads. The Middle-East is well aware that the United States has had an incompetent track record in its foreign policy in the region - conflicts in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria were all exacerbated by American idealism over any real interest to engage with regional issues.

The most recent example of this would be the United States still calling for a return to the Geneva talks in the Syrian conflict, though Geneva has proven much less successful than the Russia-backed Astana and Sochi talks.

On the other hand, Russia is on the ascendancy in the Middle-East because it has largely cooperated with regional actors and sought the best for each nation on balance. For Syria, Iran, Turkey and Israel, Russia under President Putin has engaged in delicate diplomacy to provide the best needs for each regional actor in the context of the Syrian crisis. First and foremost, it has restored control of Syria to the Syrian Arab Army and has cleared out the majority of the region from ISIS and Al-Qaeda.

For Israel, Russia has made sure that the Syrian-Israeli border does not become a stage for another proxy war with Iran. For Turkey, Russia has allowed the country to militarily intervene against Kurdish separatists in northern Syria. It is likely that Turkey will acquiesce to Bashar Al-Assad controlling Syria on the condition that the Kurdish enclave in northern Syria be disbanded.

Because of this, in the event of regime change, Iran is unlikely to realign with the US-Israeli-Gulf axis. Instead, Iran is likely to keep its current alliances and only shift rhetoric. Whether the rhetoric turns more extreme or less will depend on whether the Quds force or the Iranian military take charge after the mullahs.

Trump faces risk in Afghanistan as Putin did in the Ukraine

With the collapse in US-Pakistani relations, Pakistani-Russian reproach risks surrounding Afghanistan with Russian allies, forcing the US into a very uncomfortable position.


President Trump's South Asia strategy is working. The worsening instability in Afghanistan is a byproduct of a successful strategy: if the Taliban and Pakistan weren't worried, the violence would not be at the level of intensity that it is now.

As a result of the South Asia strategy, Indian-US ties are strengthening and Pakistani-US relations are worsening. This re-calibration of US alliances in South Asia is leading Pakistan and Russia - who traditionally have not been allies - into solidifying an alliance that leaves Afghanistan surrounded on all of its borders by Russian-Chinese allies.

This would not normally be an issue - except that, should China and Russia deal the US a defeat in Afghanistan, the US' ability to rival China as a superpower would be threatened in the long-term. Beneath the mountains of Afghanistan are an estimated trillions of dollars-worth of minerals. The minerals in Afghanistan are some of the last major mineral monopolies not held by China. Should the US be driven out of Afghanistan, it would also be driven out of one of the last major mineral monopolies, and its ability to compete economically with China in the future would be seriously challenged.

As in 2011, Pakistan may close off its land and air routes into Afghanistan, leaving the US to take the long route through central Asia. But in 2011, Pakistan relied on a later improvement in US-Pakistani relations. Today, it no longer relies on the US as it has both Russian and Chinese backing. In short, it could close off its land and air routes into Afghanistan indefinitely with less to lose than in 2011.

This makes it easier for Russian/Chinese allies to choke off all supply by sea for Afghanistan. Not only does Afghanistan border Pakistan - it borders central Asian countries to the north, which are closely allied to Russia, and it borders anti-American Iran to the west.

Such a scenario would leave President Donald Trump as hamstrung in Afghanistan as President Putin was in Ukraine in 2014. Like Ukraine for President Putin, Afghanistan is central to American geopolitical interests.

Should supply be held off by all countries bordering Afghanistan, President Trump would be forced into either withdrawal from Afghanistan - which would threaten US interest in Asia - or into forcibly seizing a sea route from one of Afghanistan's neighbours. The more likely choice? President Trump would be more likely to seize a sea route from one of Afghanistan's neighbours and, of the countries which border Afghanistan, Iran is the most likely candidate for US invasion.

Yet like George H. Bush's foreign policy with Iraq, President Trump would not want to invade and occupy all of Iran, as this would inflame tensions between Russia and the US to breaking point. Instead, a limited operation to annex a south-eastern province from Iran would be the ideal strike against the Russian ally. Not only would Afghanistan be able to have access to the sea and Iran's nuclear program be threatened - annexing Iran's south-eastern province would separate Iran from Pakistan. They would no longer border each other.

Such a precision strike by the US would humiliate the Iranian Army - which has long backed the Ayatollah and the Iranian regime - but would also be far easier than regime change, as Iran's south-east is sparsely populated and ethnically close to the Afghans.

It would create tensions between the Iranian Army and State which could be manipulated by the US for years to come. It would aid President Trump in his struggle for Afghanistan, reassure Israel and Middle-East partners of President Trump's willingness to tackle Iran and, crucially, connect Afghanistan to the wider Middle-East.

This risk of President Trump annexing Iran's south-eastern province is vividly similar to President Putin's own annexation of the Crimea from Ukraine. Faced with losing dominance over the Black Sea and less of a buffer between NATO and its own borders, Russian President Vladimir Putin annexed the Crimea from Ukraine to defend its interests against Europe and the US. Given that both Putin and Trump base their foreign policy on putting the needs of their own countries first, in desperation, President Trump is likely to try such a brazen move as Putin did in his own desperation.

With the collapse in US-Pakistani relations, Pakistani-Russian reproach risks surrounding Afghanistan with Russian allies, forcing the US into a very uncomfortable position. But, like Vladimir Putin with Crimea, it would still be likely to go President Trump's way.

Why President Trump is not a war President

Though many of President Trump's political enemies would love him to be painted in such a light, President Trump has shown curious restraint that many other candidates of the 2016 election - both Republican and Democrat - would not have.

The most famous - and frightening - call for war from Presidential candidates of 2016 was for an invasion of Syria against the Russians, to establish a no-fly-zone - something Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, Lindsey Graham and Hillary Clinton all pushed for in their foreign policy. President Trump, while bombing Khan Sheikhoun in Idlib, Syria, did so as a stunt against North Korea and to keep his foreign policy looking unpredictable.

Nor is it likely that President Trump will go to war with North Korea. Intense diplomatic pressure has been put on North Korea, China and Russia to deal with the threat Pyongyang represents to the region by seeking to acquire nuclear missiles. Contrary to Media narrative, the diplomatic pressure has been highly successful, and President Trump has been able to avoid war on the Korean peninsula while crippling the regime with harsher and harsher sanctions.

With the exception of the war on ISIL, Afghanistan is about the only war President Trump has committed to. This is in line with President Trump's "America First" foreign policy, as a stable Afghanistan not only denies terror safe havens for Al-Qaeda, ISIL and the Taliban - US presence in is also strengthens bilateral relations with India against the growing influence of China, as well as curbs Pakistan's dangerous moves in support of the Taliban.

President Trump seems highly uninterested in starting a war - whether it be against Syria and Russia, North Korea, or even Iran or Pakistan. Trump is more interested in finishing wars - that is, cleaning up the mess left behind by both the Bush and Obama Administrations, namely in Iraq and Afghanistan, and using such nations as platforms from which to shine the hope of democracy into the Middle-East and Asia.

It is such a shock to the world that a US president who acts as Donald Trump does would be more interested in peace than either of his predecessors. But that is the reality: President Trump is interested in stabilizing both Iraq and Afghanistan, followed by turning US focus back home, to make America Great Again and restore the US' reputation globally.

US-Russian reproach to follow Pakistan debacle?

The US needs a stable route into Afghanistan.

More important for the US than economic security for their mission in Afghanistan - which is what Pakistan has provided for the US over the last 16 years - is regional security. Pakistan has continued to show that it is unwilling to give up on its dangerous foreign policy, which allows US troops to use Pakistan as a base while also funding the very Taliban the US are trying to destroy.

Should Pakistani-US relations continue to sour - as seems highly likely under the Trump Administration - the US will be forced to use the more expensive Central Asia route. The route through Central Asia forces the US to deal with its strained relations with Moscow, for to have access to Central Asia requires Russian approval.

The US would likely be able to reach common ground on Afghanistan with the Kremlin, as Moscow is in no position currently to tackle the jihad threat in that region, but thorny issues like Ukraine and Syria present a difficulty for the two world powers. One sure way to ease tensions between Washington and Moscow would be for the Trump Administration to tacitly approve the political process in Syria, allow Bashar Al-Assad to stay in power and stop the rhetoric of regime change.

Such thawing of Russian-US relations also has the potential to drive a wedge between Russia and China, as Russia is far more concerned about the rising terror threat in the region than its counterpart in Beijing. China sees Pakistan and its foreign policy as advantageous to holding back India and gaining leverage over mineral reserves in Afghanistan. Though Russia has also been eying those mineral reserves, the Kremlin is aware that mineral monopoly is not worth risking instability and terrorism for the Russian Federation.

Given President Trump's long held view that he would get along well with President Putin, it is time for a thawing of relations between the two world powers regarding Afghanistan. Otherwise the US will be unable to achieve the results it desires for Afghanistan and the South Asia region.