Iran: more complex than it seems

Politicians struggle over how to react to the US/Israel attack.

Millions of Iranians – inside Iran and around the world – have been ecstatic over the news that Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was killed in a joint American and Israeli military operation.

You could hear them on X, cheering, whistling and ululating from their balconies in Tehran. Sheer joy was echoing among the buildings. For years they’d shouted, when they dared, “Death to the Dictator”. Now they have their wish.

But Khamenei can also be seen as a martyr. The Supreme Leader had his supporters too – millions of them.

The best survey I’ve seen, however, shows that he did not represent the majority of Iranians. Indeed, thousands of Iranians were murdered under his command. Given the many crimes of his corrupt and antiquated regime, there’s no need to mourn him.

But there are some catches.

First, the US/Israel attack wasn’t lawful.

Trump had approval from neither the UN nor Congress. Contrary to his claim, there were no “imminent threats from the Iranian regime”, outside of Iran itself, at that point in time. The extent to which Iran can presently pose any threat to other countries is now well known. They have an arsenal of missiles that can sometimes penetrate air defences, and can cause damage and casualties, but they only use them after they’ve been attacked.

Iran’s military and nuclear capabilities had already been degraded. At least 18 of Iran’s leading nuclear scientists had been assassinated, and the USAF had precision-bombed their nuclear facilities. Iranian air power and defences are manifestly ineffective. Iran’s proxies and allies in the region have also been degraded or defeated. If the Islamic Republic was secretly planning to restart a nuclear weapons programme, that was a far-off threat, not an imminent one.

The US and Israel, reportedly with encouragement from the Saudis, struck at this time to take advantage of Iran’s weakness, and not to combat any threat that was realistically imminent.

The American-Israeli attacks cut off talks in Geneva between the US and Iran, mediated by Oman, in which progress was being made. A lawful diplomatic process has been halted by armed combat.

Secondly, the consequences of war can’t be predicted.

I’ve said for some years now that the theocratic Islamic Republic must come to an end some day. Sadly, I’ve also understood that it won’t end without bloodshed. From today, however, there’s a risk that things only get worse. Knocking out some of the Iranian leadership does not necessarily make the world – let alone Iran itself – a safer place.

Loose talk about “regime change” often presupposes that the Iranian people will rise up, seize their freedom, vote on a new constitution and elect a representative parliament. That’s great, if it happens. But the track-record of armed interventions aiming for “regime change” isn’t all that good. Think Libya, Iraq, Afghanistan. The costs have far outweighed any benefits.

A Posture of War vs Articles of Peace

There’s a constitutional process in Iran for the selection of a new Supreme Leader, and the next one could be more or less hard-line. Further airstrikes might disrupt that transition of power. But the worst-case outcome is a paranoid military-theocratic regime with a puppet spiritual leader, dominated by the Revolutionary Guard, and cursed with civil war.

Ideally, there’d be a complete revision of the Iranian constitution to something more representative, but that’s up in air. Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi (in exile in America) has developed a plan for a transitional government, but, as Mike Tyson said, “Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth”. Armed men in Iran will resist him if he sets foot in the country.

President Trump appears to make decisions on the fly – and then change his mind – so he’s not much of a guide as to what happens next.

Western governments and political parties are having trouble knowing what to say. To help them out, someone in the White House dictated some lines. The centre-left prime ministers of Canada and Australia both said, almost word for word, that they “support the United States acting to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and to prevent Iran from continuing to threaten international peace and security”.

The right-wing New Zealand government was less aligned with the Americans on this occasion. They watered down the script by leaving out the putative nuclear threat and saying only “we acknowledge that the actions taken by the US and Israel were designed to prevent Iran from continuing to threaten international peace and security.” (That was “acknowledge”, not “support”.) And then they went on to condemn the Islamic Republic’s “indiscriminate retaliatory attacks” on neighbouring countries.

Those counter-attacks weren’t indiscriminate, however, as they’re aimed mainly at US military bases, at Israel, and at some civilian infrastructure in Gulf States, and therefore were arguably in self-defence.

Prime minister Luxon won’t explicitly support the US/Israel action, although he condemns the Islamic Republic regime and its destabilising and murderous actions. He doesn’t vouch for the legality of the American/Israeli attack, and sees it as up to those two countries to explain their own legal reasoning – which they’ve done at the UN Security Council. New Zealand’s prime minister shouldn’t be asked to explain their actions.

Luxon’s main opponent has been Helen Clark – a former Labour leader – who described the Luxon government’s statement as “a disgrace” as it didn’t call the attack illegal and didn’t address the diplomatic negotiations. She lamented a “questionable” drift to realign more with the US. Luxon and Peters failed to stand up for the international rule of law, she pointed out.

International legal processes and negotiations, on their own, won’t bring an end to the theocratic regime of the Islamic Republic. It’s too politically and economically entrenched to end without violence. Its self-styled mission is to govern as proxy until the reappearance of the “hidden” Twelfth Imam who “disappeared” in 874 CE. They’ll be waiting forever for him.

The more that international agencies and diplomats talk with the representatives of the Islamic Republic, the longer they’re recognising them as legitimate. It’s in the interests of the Islamic Republic, then, to talk endlessly and inconclusively. For reasons of state, moreover, it’s in their interests to develop nuclear weapons, one way or another, and they won’t genuinely relinquish that aspiration.

Clark’s position offers no solution to the basic problem posed by a violent autocratic regime in Tehran. She implicitly leaves Iranians, and especially Iranian women, to suffer indefinitely under what she herself describes as a “vicious theocracy”. Meanwhile, highly-paid officials hold meetings at UN headquarters and change nothing.

The UN Security Council won’t resolve to act against Iran because Russia and China will veto any such motion.

While it’s correct to say that the American/Israeli attack wasn’t lawful, a just long-term solution for the Iranian people is still the overriding concern.

Many others may adopt the realist model that says that force is justified (even outside of law) to end a criminal dictatorial regime. Trump says he aims to achieve all of his objectives, although it’s not clear what they all are. It’s unlikely, however, that the present attack on Iran will lead to a better, more peaceful Iran.

Labour leader Chris Hipkins rightly pointed out that we can condemn the autocratic regime in Iran and also condemn lawless military actions. But what’s his preferred means for ending the autocratic regime?

Setting aside politics in the West, the peaceful and long-suffering Iranians need and deserve a better system of government. A semi-presidential system exists there. A theocratic crust has to be peeled off it somehow.