The idea of “a war to end all wars” has a long provenance in the history of conflict. That idea that wars can be initiated to produce “perpetual peace” has had a powerful grip on risk-taking leaders who want to change their geopolitical conditions. The outcomes have rarely met the expectations of those who launch total wars.
We seem to be at that fateful moment in the Middle East amid Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s calls for a regime change in Iran and promises that ousting clerical rule in Tehran will herald a new era of peace and prosperity in the Middle East.
Despite the worldwide anger against Israel’s use of extreme force against Hamas and Hezbollah, Netanyahu has now lent a broader and breathtaking political objective to his costly military campaign — regime change in Iran. He is saying that the war against Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis — Iran’s regional allies — is not enough to ensure Israel’s security. And that the war must necessarily culminate in the elimination of the very source of the problem, the Islamic Republic of Iran.
In a short — a few seconds less than three minutes — but bold address, Netanyahu told the Iranian people that Israel “stands with them” against their rulers. He is appealing to the Iranians not to “let a small group of fanatic theocrats crush your hopes and your dreams. You deserve better. Your children deserve better”.
In his speech delivered in English with Farsi subtitles, Netanyahu reminded Iranians of their older and enduring Persian identity. “When Iran is finally free — and that moment will come a lot sooner than people think – everything will be different,” Netanyahu promises. “Our two ancient peoples, the Jewish people and the Persian people, will finally be at peace.”
The idea of regional peace and prosperity after the regime change is a key element of Netanyahu’s address: “When that day comes, the terror network that the regime built in five continents will be bankrupt, dismantled. Iran will thrive as never before. Global investment. Massive tourism. Brilliant technological innovation based on the tremendous talents that exist inside Iran. Doesn’t that sound better than endless poverty, repression and war?”
The idea of regional cooperation was previewed a few days earlier at Netanyahu’s speech to the UN, where he pointed to the competing regional visions of Iran and Israel. He views Iran’s influence over Iraq, Yemen, Syria and Lebanon as the “curse” that is destroying the region. The alternative, according to Netanyahu, lies in the “blessing” of the planned trans-regional economic cooperation between India, Arabia and Europe that will restore the Middle East’s status as a global hub for the exchange of goods, technologies and ideas.
This is not the first time an ambition for a connected and prosperous Middle East at peace with itself and the world has been articulated. Israeli leader Shimon Peres outlined precisely such a vision — “A New Middle East” — in 1994 as hopes for peace rose between Israel and Arabs and a settlement of the Palestinian question. It did not take long for those hopes to be dashed.
What has changed since then? One is the rise of Iran which recovered from the debilitating decade-long war with Iraq in the 1980s and began to project power across the region through a network of militant groups like Hamas, Houthis and Hezbollah. The other is the normalisation of relations between Israel and several Arab states despite the lack of progress in the creation of a Palestinian state.
Netanyahu’s strategy for a new Middle East rests on triggering a regime change in Iran and deepening ties with the Arab neighbours.
Regime change has got a bad name thanks to the messy US interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan. That does not mean regime changes do not happen — we recently had one in Bangladesh. Political change over time is part of national life. It occurs incrementally and peacefully in democracies; it tends to be disruptive and violent in authoritarian societies.
There are two ways in which regime change occurs — either through mass revolt or the maturing of contradictions within the ruling elite. The two trends often reinforce each other. What then are the prospects for political change in Iran?
The Iranian people do not need Israel’s prompting to challenge their autocratic rulers. Throughout the history of the Islamic Republic, established in 1979, there have been frequent popular protests against the regime — most recently to demand the expansion of women’s rights in 2022. But every one of the protests has been crushed with massive force by the clerics. Could it be any different next time? Unlike in Dhaka, Tehran’s clerical regime is a hard-boiled one with much stronger instruments of repression and greater political determination to survive.
Could intra-elite tensions bring the regime down? Until now, Iran’s Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has managed them very well. It remains to be seen if the ageing Ayatollah, now 85, has the capacity to cope with the sharpening internal squabbles amid mounting external pressures.
Khamenei’s inability to retaliate effectively against Israel’s war against Hamas and Hezbollah has probably convinced Netanyahu that the clerical regime is weaker than ever before. The deep penetration of the Iranian establishment by Israel’s security services is seen as offering the capacity to stir up trouble within Tehran’s ruling elite.
Netanyahu is rolling the dice on regime change in Iran, despite the calls for restraint from the US. Netanyahu has defied the Biden Administration with impunity and is acutely conscious that Washington has no choice but to back him in whatever he does. He is also aware there is strong support among the Republicans for changing the regime in Iran.
What about the Arabs? Netanyahu’s bet on regime change is rooted in an appreciation of the profound contradiction between Iran and moderate Arab states. This factor has driven the two sides towards greater economic and security cooperation, despite the major differences over Palestinian statehood.
In tempting the region with the idea of peace and prosperity, Netanyahu is offering no concessions at all on Palestine. In fact, the maps that he displayed at the United Nations don’t even show the existence of Gaza and the West Bank. Can the moderate Arab states acquiesce in the continuing marginalisation of Palestine as Israel mounts an offensive against their political nemesis, Iran?
There is no shortage of factors that could derail Netanyahu’s ambition to bring down the Islamic Republic of Iran. His effort to build a new order in the Middle East is unlikely to succeed, but the old one is surely breaking down. The unintended consequences of Netanyahu’s push for regime change in Iran are likely to produce many significant changes in the Middle East.
The writer is a contributing editor on international affairs for The Indian Express
