Here's eternal America for you: convinced it can orchestrate other people's revolutions like programming a coffee machine. Read more: trump sells access The failure of Israel's plan to spark a popular uprising in Iran, which Donald Trump hoped would "quickly end the war" according to the New York Times, is just the latest episode in a long series of made-in-USA geopolitical delusions.
The Hubris of Social Engineering
For sixty years, Washington has been collecting regime change fiascos. Read more: breaking overthrowing regime Cuba, Vietnam, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan... Every time, the same magic recipe: stir up the local population a bit, finance a few opponents, and voilà! Democracy blooms spontaneously. That this method has failed everywhere never dents our armchair strategists' faith.
Trump, despite being a fierce critic of his predecessors' interventions, falls into the same trap. His bet on an Iranian revolt remote-controlled from Tel Aviv betrays a staggering ignorance of theocratic power dynamics. The mullahs don't hold power through repression alone—they rely on a state apparatus, economic networks, and yes, part of the population that prefers authoritarian stability to democratic chaos.
Iran Is Not Ukraine
This miscalculation reveals a deeper blindness to the nature of Middle Eastern societies. Iran in 2026 is not Eastern Europe in 1989. Iranians have witnessed their neighbors' "color revolutions": they've seen Iraq sink into chaos after 2003, Libya explode after 2011, Syria tear itself apart for a decade.
When Israel bets on a popular uprising, it forgets that ordinary Iranians can hate their regime while fearing the alternative even more. Between an oppressive but predictable government and the unknown of civil war, the choice is quickly made. The 2019 and 2022 demonstrations showed this: anger exists, but it's not enough to topple a system.
The Outsourcing Trap
Even more troubling: this strategy reveals how Washington now outsources its failures. Unable to directly assume an intervention, the Trump administration subcontracts the dirty work of regime change to Israel. Convenient for avoiding domestic criticism, catastrophic for effectiveness.
After all, how could Israel possibly spark a popular revolution in Iran? Its image in the region, to put it politely, doesn't predispose Persian crowds to follow its democratic advice. It's like asking Russia to organize free elections in Ukraine: the absurdity is obvious, except apparently in Washington.
The Real Beneficiaries
While Trump dreams of express revolutions, who really profits from this flawed strategy? First, Israeli hawks who get American carte blanche for their operations. Then, Iranian mullahs who can wave the specter of foreign interference to justify their repression. Finally, arms manufacturers on both sides who see their order books filling up.
The losers? The peoples of the region, condemned to suffer the consequences of a war that drags on for lack of coherent strategy. And American taxpayers, who finance a foreign policy as costly as it is ineffective.
The Forgotten Alternative
Is there another path? Of course, but it requires what Washington sorely lacks: patience. Rather than fantasizing about revolution on command, America could bet on Iranian demographic evolution. 60% of the population is under 35, speaks English, uses the internet despite censorship. This generation will change Iran—but at its own pace, on its own terms.
This would mean abandoning the illusion of total control, giving up miracle solutions. It would also mean treating Iran as a rational actor rather than a rogue state to be toppled. Revolutionary, no?
The Ignored Lesson
The failure of Israel's plan should serve as a lesson. It reveals the dead end of a diplomacy that confuses geopolitics with video games, where one believes they can "unlock" revolutions by pressing the right buttons. This engineer's mentality applied to human affairs invariably produces catastrophes.
But knowing Washington, this lesson will be forgotten by the next briefing. They'll look for a new plan, a new scheme, a new shortcut to victory. Because admitting that some problems have no quick solutions means recognizing the limits of American power. And that's even harder to swallow than a failure in Iran.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q: What are the main reasons behind Washington's regime change efforts?
Washington has a long history of attempting regime change, believing it can orchestrate revolutions in other countries. This approach has often failed, as seen in places like Cuba, Vietnam, Iraq, and Libya, where the expectation of spontaneous democracy has not materialized.
Q: How does Trump's view on regime change differ from previous administrations?
While Trump has criticized past interventions, he still falls into the same pattern of believing in the possibility of orchestrating revolutions, as demonstrated by his hopes for an Iranian uprising. This reflects a misunderstanding of the complexities of theocratic power dynamics in Iran.
Q: Why is Iran's situation different from Eastern Europe in 1989?
Iran's socio-political landscape is distinct from that of Eastern Europe during the fall of communism. Iranians have observed the chaos that followed regime changes in neighboring countries and may prefer the stability of their current government over the uncertainty of potential civil war.