\n<\/p>\n
Barely an hour after the first U.S. and Israeli missiles struck Iran<\/a>, President Donald Trump made clear he hoped for regime change. \u201cNow is the time to seize control of your destiny,\u201d he told the Iranian people in a video. \u201cThis is the moment for action<\/a>. Do not let it pass.\u201d<\/p>\n Doesn’t sound complicated. After all, with Iran’s fundamentally unpopular government weakened by fierce airstrikes, some of its top leaders dead or missing and Washington signaling support, how hard could it be to overthrow a repressive regime? <\/p>\n Possibly very hard. So says history. <\/p>\n Washington has a long, complicated past when it comes to regime change. There was Vietnam in the 1960s and 70s, and Panama in 1989. There was Nicaragua in the 1980s, Iraq<\/a> and Afghanistan<\/a> in the years after 9\/11, and Venezuela<\/a> just weeks ago.<\/p>\n There was also Iran. In 1953, the CIA helped engineer a coup that toppled Iran\u2019s democratically elected leader and gave near-absolute power to Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi<\/a>. But as with the shah, who was overthrown in Iran\u2019s 1979 Islamic Revolution after decades of increasingly unpopular rule, regime change rarely goes as planned.<\/p>\n Attempts to usher in U.S.-friendly governments often start with clear intentions, whether hope for democracy in Iraq or backing an anti-Communist leader in Congo at the Cold War’s height. But often those intentions stumble into a political quagmire where democratic dreams turn into civil war, once-compliant dictators become embarrassments and American soldiers return home in body bags. <\/p>\n That history has long been a Trump talking point. \u201cWe must abandon the failed policy of nation building and regime change,\u201d he said in 2016.<\/p>\n \u201cIn the end, the so-called \u2018nation-builders\u2019 wrecked far more nations than they built,\u201d he said in a 2025 speech in Saudi Arabia, deriding U.S. efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq. The \u201cinterventionists were intervening in complex societies that they did not even understand.\u201d<\/p>\n Now, after Saturday’s actions, a key question emerges: Does today’s U.S. government understand what it’s getting into?<\/p>\n Iran\u2019s economy is in shambles<\/a> and dissent remains strong<\/a> even after a brutal January crackdown<\/a> on protests left thousands of people dead and tens of thousands under arrest. Many of the nation\u2019s key military proxies and allies \u2014 Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, the Assad government in Syria \u2014 have been weakened or eliminated. And early Sunday, Iranian state media confirmed Israel and the United States had killed<\/a> Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei<\/a>.<\/p>\n The United States hasn’t laid out a postwar vision and doesn\u2019t necessarily even want a complete overthrow of the Iranian leadership. As in Venezuela, it may already have potential allies in the government willing to step into a power vacuum.<\/p>\n \u201cBut there\u2019s a lot that needs to happen between now and a possible scenario along these lines,\u201d said Jonathan Schanzer, executive director at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a Washington think tank that is deeply critical of the Iranian government. \u201cThere needs to be a sense that there is no salvation for the regime as such, and that they will need to work with the United States.\u201d<\/p>\n In a country where the core leaders are deeply united by ideology and religion, that may be extremely difficult. <\/p>\n \u201cThe question to my mind right now is have we been able to penetrate the ranks of the regime that are not true believers that are more pragmatic,\u201d Schanzer said. \u201cBecause I don\u2019t believe that the true believers will flip.\u201d<\/p>\n It\u2019s simply too early to know if \u2014 or how much \u2014 the political winds are shifting in Tehran. The leaders who come next could turn out to be equally repressive or seen domestically as an illegitimate U.S. stooge.<\/p>\n \u201cWe\u2019ll see whether elements of the regime start moving against each other,\u201d said Phillips O\u2019Brien, professor of strategic studies at the University of St. Andrews in Scotland. \u201cAir power can damage a leadership,\u201d he said. \u201cBut it can\u2019t guarantee that you\u2019ll bring in something new.\u201d<\/p>\n In Latin America, Washington\u2019s history of intervention in goes back a long way \u2014 to when President James Monroe claimed the hemisphere as part of the U.S. sphere of influence more than 200 years ago.<\/p>\n If the Monroe Doctrine began as a way to keep European countries out of the region, by the 20th century it was justifying everything from coups in Central America to the failed Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba in 1961. Very often, historians say, that intervention led to violence, bloodshed and mass human rights violations. Therein, they say, lies a lesson.<\/p>\n Direct U.S. involvement has rarely \u201cresulted in long-term democratic stability,\u201d said Christopher Sabatini, a senior fellow for Latin America at the London think tank Chatham House. He points to Guatemala, where U.S. intervention in the 1950s led to a civil war that didn’t end for 40 years and left more than 200,000 people dead.<\/p>\n Or there’s Nicaragua, where backing of the Contra rebels against the Sandinista government in the 1980s contributed to a prolonged civil conflict that devastated the economy, caused tens of thousands of deaths and deepened political polarization.<\/p>\n While large-scale, overt U.S. involvement in the region mostly petered out after the Cold War, Trump has rekindled the legacy. <\/p>\n Since assuming office last year, Trump launched boat strikes against alleged drug traffickers<\/a> in the Caribbean, ordered a naval blockade<\/a> on Venezuelan oil exports and got involved in electoral politics in Honduras<\/a> and Argentina<\/a>. Then, on Jan. 3, U.S. forces captured Venezuelan strongman leader Nicol\u00e1s Maduro, flying him to the U.S. to face drug and weapons charges.<\/p>\n What followed in Caracas may signal what the White House hopes will happen in Tehran. Many observers thought the U.S. would back Mar\u00eda Corina Machado, who has long been the face of political resistance in Venezuela. Instead, Washington effectively sidelined her and has repeatedly shown a willingness to work with President Delcy Rodr\u00edguez<\/a>, who had been Maduro\u2019s second-in-command.<\/p>\n \u201cThere are those who could claim that what we did in Venezuela is not regime change,\u201d said Schanzer, at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. \u201cThe regime is still in place. There\u2019s just one person that\u2019s missing.\u201d<\/p>\n ___<\/p>\n Tim Sullivan has reported from more than 35 countries for The Associated Press since 1993. Danica Kirka in London and El\u00e9onore Hughes in Rio de Janeiro contributed to this report.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n