By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Following the potential departure of Ali Khamenei, questions remain regarding the future leadership of Iran. Concerns are raised that hardline figures, potentially more extreme than the current leader, could assume control. This uncertainty presents a significant challenge in the aftermath of ongoing conflict.
Read the original article here
The idea that America will require “boots on the ground” in Iran for Donald Trump to select the nation’s next leader, as suggested by comments from the UK, paints a rather grim and complex picture of international intervention. It underscores a fundamental belief that genuine regime change, especially in a country as large and geographically challenging as Iran, cannot be achieved through air power alone. The notion of forcing a shift in leadership from the skies is seen as insufficient, implying a necessity for direct, physical presence on the ground to effect such a profound political alteration.
This perspective inherently carries the heavy implication of significant military commitment. If “boots on the ground” are deemed essential, it suggests a long-term, perhaps even protracted, engagement. The thought that all these soldiers will be sent to die for nothing is a chilling one, pointing to a lack of clear objectives or an achievable end goal. History, specifically the million soldiers Iran itself lost in a failed attempt to invade Iraq, is presented as a stark warning against such endeavors, highlighting the immense cost and potential futility of military action in the region.
Furthermore, the sentiment that military endeavors, particularly under certain leadership, are for “suckers and losers” adds a layer of cynical commentary to the situation. It suggests a profound distrust in the strategic wisdom behind such interventions, especially when they lack a clear and compelling justification. The absence of a well-defined end game is a recurring theme, echoing past mistakes and raising concerns about the potential for prolonged conflict without a discernible path to resolution.
This is precisely why allies, like the UK, have reportedly expressed reservations, stating they would only participate if there was a clear plan and legal basis. The lessons learned from previous interventions, such as the 2003 invasion of Iraq, are evidently weighing heavily. The emphasis on a lawful basis and a “viable thought-through plan” indicates a cautious approach, a desire to avoid repeating past errors that led to instability and unintended consequences.
The narrative further suggests that any proposed military action in Iran is already facing wavering commitment, with indications that the idea of sending U.S. troops into Iran is being questioned as pointless. The mention of shifts in focus to other geopolitical areas, like Cuba, could be interpreted as a sign of a lack of sustained commitment or a wavering strategy, creating an impression of instability and an inability to commit to a singular, long-term objective.
The prediction that any involvement will end with a declared victory, possibly based on questionable pretenses, and a subsequent withdrawal, leaving the region in disarray, is a pessimistic but, some might argue, historically informed outlook. This cynicism fuels the justification for other nations, like the UK and Europe, to refrain from direct involvement, recognizing the potential for such interventions to destabilize rather than resolve complex situations.
The sheer scale of Iran, a country with a population of 93 million and a size larger than Texas, makes any notion of external leadership selection a monumental undertaking. The idea that a foreign power could simply “pick” the next leader for such a nation is presented as bordering on the absurd. This is further complicated by the assumption that a widespread desire for regime change exists, particularly among urban populations who may be bearing the brunt of current policies, even as they are allegedly being targeted. The geographic realities of Iran, with its challenging mountainous terrain, are also highlighted as significant obstacles to any ground invasion, suggesting that any invading force would face immense difficulties and potentially devastating losses.
The comparison to prolonged and unsuccessful interventions in places like Afghanistan and Iraq, where nation-building efforts have faltered despite decades of presence, casts a long shadow over any proposed action in Iran. The question of whether it would be easier to foster a democratic and stable Iran compared to its neighbors, and whether an organized opposition exists capable of challenging the current regime, remains largely unanswered. The very premise of an external power dictating leadership is questioned, with the intrinsic right of the Iranian people to choose their own leaders being a central concern.
The complexity of post-conflict leadership in Iran is acknowledged, with the potential for hardliners to emerge even if current leadership is removed. The idea that regime change cannot be succeeded from the air anywhere in the world is a strong indictment of aerial bombardment as a strategy for political transformation, suggesting that only direct, on-the-ground efforts, which carry their own immense risks, could potentially achieve it. Iran’s geography is again emphasized as a natural fortress, making any ground invasion an inherently perilous undertaking for an external force.
The potential for a protracted and messy conflict is amplified by the suggestion that the United States might have to go it alone, as allies are perceived as unwilling to fully commit to the front lines. This isolation, coupled with the immense challenges of invading and occupying a country the size and population of Iran, evokes comparisons to historical conflicts that resulted in massive casualties and uncertain outcomes. The entire scenario is framed as a farcical and potentially catastrophic endeavor, lacking a clear plan, a win condition, and broad support. The notion of appointing leaders based on mere whims, rather than genuine democratic processes, is seen as a dangerous precedent, potentially leading to more instability and a perpetuation of autocratic rule, albeit under a different guise. The potential for the United States to find itself propping up a new dictatorship for an extended period, only to see it eventually overthrown, is a recurring fear. The sheer lack of a coherent script or plausible strategy for such an intervention is striking, further fueling skepticism and concern about the ultimate aims and consequences of any proposed military action.