Yesterday I lamented the lack of serious commentary on the war in Iran. Although I found a number of such articles today, most followed the pattern I outlined yesterday. The one exception was this post at War on the Rocks by Albert B. Wolf. In the post Dr. Wolf urges the Administration in no uncertain terms not to arm the Kurds to rise up against the regime in Iran or, presumably, to arm other ethnic groups in the same fashion.
The Trump administration should abandon any plans to arm Iranian Kurdish forces before the first fighter crosses the Iraqi-Iranian border. Not refine it. Not sequence it more carefully. Drop it entirely. The operation will not topple the Iranian regime, will inflame the Persian nationalism that is the Islamic Republic’s most reliable reserve fuel, and — most damagingly — will hand Tehran a coalition-fracturing tool it did not have to build. There is no version of this gambit that serves American strategic interests.
The article goes on to defend that view. His argument rests on three claims: that Kurdish insurgency will not topple the regime, that it will strengthen Persian nationalism inside Iran, and that it will fracture the regional coalition by alarming neighbors such as Turkey and Pakistan.
I have one question for Dr. Wolf. What is it in the Trump Administration’s actions to date that convince you it is engaging in the long-term thinking you are advocating rather than focusing on the problems it would cause for the regime today? Dr. Wolf’s argument assumes that Washington is weighing long-term regional consequences against short-term tactical gains. But the administration’s behavior to date suggests something closer to opportunism: maximizing immediate pressure on the regime with little regard for downstream effects.
The real challenge is whether Iran’s is a regime that can be destabilized internally, or is Iran a civilization-state whose population will rally against external meddling?
