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.
