Brief Thoughts on Regime Change

Moral and mental clarity on the conflict in Iran:

With America and Israel – along with some Western allies and even some Arab/Muslim states – moving full steam ahead to rid the beleaguered Iranian population of the hated tyrannical Islamist regime, there is again a lot of discussion about notions of ‘regime change’ and the like.

There are many ways to assess this issue: politically, historically, legally, militarily, morally, philosophically, even theologically. Writing as a Christian primarily to other Christians, what might be said about this – at least in part from a biblical perspective?

Well, the first thing to be said is this: there is plenty of regime change to be found in the Bible – certainly in the Old Testament. First and foremost, there is the case of ancient Israel taking the Promised Land. Obviously other peoples were living there before this took place.

But this conquest was all part of the good plan of God. Indeed, a full 400 years before the taking of Canaan, God had told Abram in Genesis 15:13-16 why and when it was going to happen:

Know for certain that for four hundred years your descendants will be strangers in a country not their own and that they will be enslaved and mistreated there. But I will punish the nation they serve as slaves, and afterward they will come out with great possessions. You, however, will go to your ancestors in peace and be buried at a good old age. In the fourth generation your descendants will come back here, for the sin of the Amorites has not yet reached its full measure.

The wickedness of the Canaanite people would get to a place where Yahweh would finally judge them, using the Israelites as his chosen means. And other nations would be toppled as well over the centuries, all to fulfil the plans and purposes of God. So whether it was Assyria or Babylon or other nations, regime change happened plenty of times.

Of course just because God has done something does not necessarily mean that we should go and do the same. But the point is this: such regime change is not inherently evil and immoral if God is willing to do it. Sure, we might engage in this action for wrong reasons or with wrong motives or with wrong means, and so on. But it CAN be a morally licit thing to do at times.

And since we are speaking now primarily of America under Trump, we can say that some past cases of regime change have been very good things indeed – despite what a few nutter isolationists and characters like Tucker Carlson now say. Getting rid of Hitler and the Nazis and the barbaric Japanese tyrants was certainly a good thing.

And that was indeed real regime change. Both nations not only had their previous ruling regimes toppled, but new governments were installed and even new constitutions were put in place. I – and millions of others – much prefer the Germany and Japan of today than what they were like before this regime change occurred.

Do all nations have a right to exist and to self-defence?

Plenty more questions arise here. One might better rephrase the question I just asked like this: Are all governments and rulers legitimate? Even that question needs careful answering. Obviously, God thought the wicked Canaanites HAD lost their right to rule and defend themselves. So God ousted them by means of his own people – even though they were not morally pristine.

The examples I just mentioned from WWII are also pretty clear cases of evil regimes that have lost their legitimacy to exist. The principles of just war theory and the like came into play there. Stopping murderous, imperialist regimes from raping and pillaging entire peoples and killing millions of innocent civilians was a morally legitimate war aim – a legitimate case of regime change.

Sure, that does not mean that the ‘good guys’ always get it right. Again, sticking with America, not all their actions in this regard have always been good and helpful. The two usual cases brought up by the critics are Iraq and Afghanistan. In reply, I think it can be said that a case could be made as to why those regimes there had to go.

But HOW this was done and the follow-up to it certainly can be questioned and criticised. Mistakes were certainly made, and many outcomes were far from ideal. But Trump was not part of either one! So in this sense, we can point out some clear differences with the operations in Iran today. This nation has been terrorising its own people, its neighbours, and the world for 47 years.

When the evil rulers there said year in and year out that they wanted to destroy America and the West, it was worth taking them seriously. When the Iranian leadership repeatedly swore to annihilate the ‘Little Satan’ Israel and the ‘Great Satan’ America, ignoring such talk was NOT a wise way to proceed.

And given how furiously they were working on their plans to develop nuclear weapons to carry out their dire threats, there was a very real case indeed to take action against Iran – especially since 8 months of attempts by the Trump administration to negotiate with them proved to be futile.

So to seek to neutralise this rogue state and the world’s worst state sponsor of global terrorism was a legitimate and worthwhile goal. Whether this military operation lasts a few more weeks or even a month is a moot point. We hope and pray that American, Israeli and civilian casualties are kept to a minimum. But in war, sadly, some people will always get hurt.

And as Trump has been clearly stating, once these military objectives are reached, then the Iranians can decide for themselves how things should pan out. There is no intention of having US soldiers on the ground there, or to have a protracted process of democratisation or ‘Americanisation’. As JD Vance just recently told Jesse Watters on Fox News, there will be no “forever war”. He said this:

The president has CLEARLY defined what he wants to accomplish, and there’s just no way … that Donald Trump is going to allow this country to get into a multi-year conflict with no clear end in sight and no clear objective. What is different about President Trump – and its frankly different about both Republicans and Democrats of the past – is that he’s not going to let his country go to war unless there’s a clearly defined objective. He’s defined that objective as Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon and has to commit long-term to never trying to rebuild a nuclear capability. It’s pretty clear, it’s pretty simple, and I think that means that we’re not getting into the problems that we have had with Iraq and Afghanistan.

And as Secretary of State Marco Rubio said, “The bottom line is no matter who governs that country a year from now, they’re not going to have these ballistic missiles and they’re not going to have these drones to threaten us. That’s the objective of this mission.”

The Iranian people can decide for themselves how their nation will be governed and by whom. America and Israel are simply taking out the trash, so that a newly liberated Iranian populace can go back to a much better life, one like before the 1979 Islamist Revolution.

Pray for this conflict with the Islamist enemy to come to a swift end, and pray for the poor longsuffering Iranians that they can once again can enjoy a free, democratic and prosperous life, in whatever way they choose to proceed with it.

Not all regime change is desirable or moral. However, I believe the regime change we are now witnessing in Iran is both.

Postscript

I just came upon this very helpful and incisive 40-minute video on regime change and the current situation in Iran by Dinesh D’Souza. It is well worth watching: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qMPTUgZBSp4

[1324 words]