Regime change could be 'the worst of all outcomes', expert tells CGTN

While U.S President Donald Trump has now explicitly outlined "regime change" as his vision for the future of Iran, an expert has warned that would lead to "the worst of all outcomes" – namely a dysfunctional state with localized insurgencies funded by foreign powers. 

Speaking to CGTN Europe, Maziyar Ghiabi – director of the Center for Persian and Iranian Studies at the University of Exeter – also predicted that Iran may well choose to respond to Saturday night's U.S. bombing of its nuclear sites by targeting American military sites across the Gulf.

"The first option might be some form of intervention within the Strait of Hormuz," Ghiabi said. "This could be targeting only U.S.-bound ships, for example, or a full closure which might be at a later stage. This is a quite dramatic step, but I think the conflict, instead of sort of going towards stalemate, is actually escalating further. 

"Another option is Iran targeting U.S. military bases in the Middle East and along the Arabian Peninsula, so the southern part of the Persian Gulf."

Ghiabi said that while a counter-attack is optional, it brings its own risks of furthering Washington's military intervention. 

"Iranian officials are wary of direct attack on military bases because if it causes casualties, that could bring in the U.S. more actively in the war with repeated strikes. And Iran is at the moment trying to avoid that, I would say." 

Ghiabi is worried that Trump's stated aim of regime change could bring violent instability to the region. 

"Regime change is a word that is being used, but actually what it means is mostly a regime collapse, or a situation of ungovernability – along the lines that we've already seen in Libya and Syria in the past," he said.

"This would mean a dysfunctioning remaining state, let's say the Islamic Republic, with localized insurgencies supported by foreign powers, particularly Israel and the United States, which have a long track history of supporting anti-Islamic Republic groups.

"That's the worst of all outcomes really, because it will mean a decade-long period of instability with a complete destruction of Iran's current infrastructure, scientific achievement, and the lack of human security."

Asked if he saw any possible peaceful paths toward de-escalation, Ghiabi was sadly downbeat – and appealed to major powers elsewhere to speak up.

"I'd like to say yes, but I'm very pessimistic about it, because I see strong positioning by Israel and the United States," he said. "In spite of their rhetoric being partly confusing and ambiguous, it seems that they have both decided that this conflict needs to be continued to the point of capitulation. 

"The Iranian political elite is not ready to capitulate, and these people have been fighting different battles for several decades. So the likely outcome for it is not a peaceful process – unless incredible pressure from world superpowers, including China and Russia, could lead to a reasoning on the Middle Eastern front by the United States and Israel."