The need for the United States to pursue the objective of regime change in Iran is argued by Dr. David Bennett on the basis that nuclear conflict could well occur on a global scale if Tehran is allowed to develop nuclear weapons.

Sometimes brilliant people are such because they can communicate in vivid terms what must be done. Iran’s refusal to stop its nuclear weapons programme means that President Trump can now publicly argue that the United States has to pursue the option of regime change because should Tehran acquire nuclear weapons they could be used against Israel, the neighobouring Arab states and possibly the United States and Europe. Indeed it does not take a genius to understand that Iran has calculated that it can get away with acquiring nuclear weapons becasue neither Democrat nor Republican adminstrations would pursue the ojective of regime change in Iran given the memories of Afghanistan and Iraq.

However, by the Trump administration placing the onus on Tehran to end its nuclear weapons development programme it is able to call the regime’s bluff. It therefore can still be logically explained by President Trump that for all the economic and military pressure which has been placed on Iran, Tehran still has not abandoned its nuclear weapons programme so that it can be deduced logically that Iran will use nuclear weapons after it acquires them. To help achieve this consequent objective of regime change, President Trump will have to call on the American people to face the appalling consequences of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons. At any rate the prospect of the United States being dragged into another `forever war‘ in Iran is erroneous. This is because political and military power in that nation can be rapidly and effectively turned over to the former Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi. He has the necessary political skills and the requisite popular support base within Iran to lead a successful transitional government which will negate the need for there to be a long-term American-led occupation of Iran. From a military standpoint Iran is a vast nation which is potentially extremely infilitratable so that special long-range operations can be undertaken based upon the Australian and British SAS doctrines. These military doctrines can be judiciously applied and modified by a combination of air power and`boots on the ground`.

By American led forces carefully selecting and engaging Iranian Revolutionary Guard Forces (IRGF) held territory across the breadth of Iran, the need to fight the regime on a massive and bloody scale could be avoided. This more selective approach of utilizing special forces to overwhelm the IRGF across the breadth of Iran would shift the miltiary balance in favour of an American led coalition, which includes anti-regime Iranians. After territory is militarily taken by these American led forces, it can be promptly turned over to the forces of the array of ethnic and religous communities within Iran who are hostile to the current regime and would accept a new transitional government led by the former Iranian crown prince. Such a strategy would be to turn the present advantages held by the Iranian forces against them. The installation of a new provisional Iranian government would not only advance peace in the Middle East but also save the world from the terrifying prospect of Iran acquiring and subsequently using nuclear weapons. Furthermore, by the Trump administration promptly preventing such a horrifying scenario the terrible prospect of the now far-left Democrats winning this year’s November congressional elections could also be avoided. Indeed, the mainstream media in the United States is manifestsing its anti-Trump bias by under-reporting the current military conficlt in the Middle East. This is probably being done so that President Trump cannot rally his Make America Great Again (MAGA) domestic base to support a subsequent military campaign to bring about regime change in Tehran. However, any loss of life by US miltiary personnel is being reported so as to set the groundwork for a consequent public backlash against the Trump administraton if military operations are esclated to faciliate regime change. There will however, be plenty of bloodshed to reprort if Iran acquires nuclear weapons. For Tehran will not have withstood American military pressure to date if the regime did not intend to use nuclaear weapns for offensive purposses.

Furthermore, it cannot be expected that threatend nations such as Israel will not pre-emptievely use its nuclear weapons against Iran should Tehran be allowed to continue its nuclear weapons development. The use of nuclear weapons by either Israel or Iran will set a dangerous precedent for India and Pakistan to follow suit and the threat of nuclear weapons being utilized by North Korea cannnot be overstated. The threat of war again breaking out on the Korean peninsula is possible (likely) should mainland China invade the Republic of China (ROC) on Tawian becasue neighbouring Pacific powers such as Japan will not allow this island to fall. Furthermore, Russa’s beleagured President Putin may resort to using nuclear weapons against Ukraine if there is a nuclear exchange in other parts of the world. It should also be pointed out at this juncture, that if the Biden administration had not abandoned the Afghan people to the Taliban in August 2021, Russia might not hae been emboldoned to invade Ukraine the following year. Such is the flow on effect of American neo-isolationism! However, the acutely dangerous potential ramifications of Ameircan neo-isolationism can be avoided by the Trump administraton preventing Iran from having nuclear weapons by facilitating regime change in Tehran. Although President Trump has achieved much during his presidency, the success or otherwise, of his administration might utlimately depend on how he handles the current Iranian crisis. As a political maverick, President Trump can apply the unconventional military doctrines to the contemporary Iranian context and in the process help secure his historical legacy.