Trump Has No Plan for Iran's Future

The American bombardment of Iran has been launched without explanation, without Congress, without even an attempt to build public support. Above all it has been launched without a coherent strategy for the Iranian people, and without a plan to help them build a legitimate Iranian state. I have spent time over the years with people active in the Iranian opposition, and this morning I heard the same mixed emotions from them that I heard from Venezuelans on the day Maduro was abducted. They were very happy he was gone, but very worried that the dictatorship and instability would remain. One of my Iranian friends texted me this morning. “This is one of the best days of my life, Anne; also I am very worried about what comes next.”

I wrote about the absence of a strategy in the Atlantic:

This lack of coherence has plagued the Trump administration’s policy for many weeks. On at least eight occasions during Iran’s nationwide uprising in early January, Trump encouraged Iranians to “take over their institutions” and promised that American help was “on its way.” But just last month, days after the Iranian regime massacred thousands of its own citizens, President Trump’s special envoy, Steve Witkoff, sent out the opposite message. He described Iran as “a deal that ought to happen” and said the country could be welcomed into “the league of nations.” Vice President J. D. Vance has also said that America’s interests in Iran are limited. “If the Iranian people want to overthrow the regime, that’s up to the Iranian people,” Vance recently told reporters. “What we’re focused on right now is the fact that Iran can’t have a nuclear weapon.”

The absence of broader strategy fits a pattern. For decades, American presidents from both parties have oscillated between coercion and engagement with Iran, sometimes offering diplomacy, sometimes sanctions. Doves and hawks both sought to manage the tactics of the Islamic Republic—its nuclear ambitions, its ballistic missiles, its network of proxy militias throughout the Middle East—without ever coming up with a meaningful strategy to combat the root problem: the ideology of the regime itself.

The Islamic Republic is a theocracy founded explicitly to oppose the deepest principles of liberal democracy and the rule of law. During its 47-year reign, this theocratic state underwent no meaningful political reform, made no improvement to its human-rights record, and never stopped trying to export its radicalism abroad. To maintain control, the regime has used mass violence, intimidation, and surveillance. In recent years, the regime has also sought, successfully, to use online smear campaigns to divide and denigrate the Iranian opposition. Nevertheless, as the scholar and activist Ladan Boroumand has written, Western liberal democracies have long preferred to engage the Islamic Republic “almost solely through the paradigm of Realpolitik,” to engage in negotiations that never seemed to work.

There were plenty of opportunities to try something different. In 2009, at the time of mass protests in Iran, the Obama administration could have put a human-rights campaign at the heart of its Iran policy, promoting the people, ideas, education, and media that could have helped change Iran from within. In 2019, after the cancellation of Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran, the first Trump administration could have done the same. But they did not.

The second Trump administration has gone much farther in the opposite direction, actually dismantling tools that could have helped to promote civic engagement and to build a united opposition in Iran. The administration has taken money away from Iranian-human-rights-monitoring groups and defunded media projects. Just a couple of weeks ago, I wrote about Kari Lake, the former Arizona political candidate who now runs the U.S. Agency for Global Media. She has made deep personnel cuts, misspent money, and heedlessly took content off the air, in Iran and around the world. She has prevented Radio Farda, the Farsi-language channel of the U.S. broadcaster Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, from using American transmission equipment. At Voice of America’s Farsi-language channelshe installed a controversial, partisan leader who has banned any mention of Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi, the son of the late shah of Iran, who commands a substantial following both inside and outside the country.

Also from the Atlantic:

The administration’s apparent lack of interest in the Iranian opposition adds a layer of surreality to the video that Trump posted early Saturday morning. He called on the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, the Iranian armed forces, and the police to “lay down your weapons.” But to whom should they surrender? He almost taunted the Iranian people to take charge. “Let’s see how you respond,” he said. “America is backing you with overwhelming strength and devastating force.” But who is “you”?

The civil-society and women’s-rights activists who want to build a rule-of-law society, with transparency, accountability, and independent courts? The ethnic minorities—Kurdish, Baluchi, Azerbaijani and others—who want a decentralized state and more autonomy? The sometimes-fanatical supporters of a new monarchy, who have tried in recent months to push others to the sidelines? Breakaway groups inside the revolutionary guard who might be interested in creating a military dictatorship?

The point is not that the U.S. should promote democracy for its own sake. For the region to be at peace, Tehran must transform itself from the headquarters of an insurgency back into the capital of a country seeking to build peace and prosperity for its own citizens. Iran does not need a new dictatorship, but self-determination and a pluralist government that respects basic rights.

Read the whole article in the Atlantic, as well as the rest of our coverage; My colleague Karim Sadjipour has already written an obituary of Khamenei.

Trump has no plan for Iran

Buy Autocracy Inc