Regime change in Iran? Be careful what you wish for

Getty Images

Ten years ago, in a very different world, the SNP was adapting to life as Westminster’s third party and the resulting new responsibilities. The EU Referendum Bill was still rattling its way through Parliament, with the mayhem it unleashed yet to come.

As the SNP’s first member of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, I was working with colleagues as then Prime Minister David Cameron mulled the expansion of air strikes against Daesh. The so-called Islamic State had unleashed a wave of horrifying violence across the region that they were publicising through social media channels. The Committee had investigated the implications of any such military action taking evidence from a range of actors and experts in the UK and region. The proposed action was one of extending UK airstrikes from Iraq, where the RAF was already in action against Daesh, across the border into Syria. That would have meant the UK joining other states, as well as countless armed groups, in becoming a participant, however limited, in the ongoing conflicts across Syria.

Comparatively this was a modest proposal. Daesh was not a state actor, the UK was already involved in military action against them and there was unanimity around wanting to see an end to Daesh’s murderous reign. However, there was reluctance across Parliament to sanction intervention. Even in 2015, the implications of the toppling of Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, hung heavy over MPs, mindful of the consequences of the Iraq war, pursued by a Labour Prime Minister, that had led to regional destabilisation, an undermining of the international rules-based system and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis in the subsequent civil war.

There were also the more recent consequences of ‘regime change’ in Libya where a Conservative Prime Minister had sanctioned action that led to the fall of Colonel Qaddafi’s administration. Many of the mistakes that had been made on the run up to Iraq were repeated in the Franco-British led actions in Libya. The consequences of those mistakes were again felt most keenly by the innocent civilians.

Given that recent history our Committee was asked to come up with a set of criteria for the House to consider ahead of the vote. Our report, written by the very talented team of clerks who assisted us, was published in November 2015. It bears re- reading today especially the short, one page section “Enabling the House to reach a decision” that effectively provides a ‘check list’ for war. When teaching first years at the University of St Andrews I used to ask them to read the report, and if not the whole thing, then that one-page provided a good cheat sheet of what policy makers should look for when considering whether to sanction military intervention.

It is as useful a read today as it was then. Some of the questions around international law, the role of ground troops, agreement of regional actors and the overall strategic goals meant that the Committee could not, initially, agree military action. Today as Trump considers action, and the UK is coming under pressure, I feel that the questions we posed then are relevant today and again have not been answered.

Don’t get me wrong, the Iranian regime is deeply unpleasant, threatening its neighbours, murdering opponents and oppressing its citizens. The same was true for the regimes in Tripoli and Baghdad. Furthermore a nuclear armed Iran would be dangerous for the region and the rest of the world. Iran has absolutely no problem in visiting death and destruction on its citizens and neighbours including providing an arsenal for Russia and the drones that target families in their homes in Ukraine.

An Iran that respects international law has huge potential as I saw for myself in 2015 when the Committee visited. Sitting around the table in the British Embassy where Churchill had celebrated his 65 th birthday with Stalin and Roosevelt during the Tehran Conference in 1943, the British chargé d’affairs and other senior diplomats updated us on the progress with the JCPOA diplomatic negotiations to limit Iran’s nuclear capabilities. They were clearly making some progress until Trump brought them to an end. We were also briefed, and could see for ourselves, the economic potential of the country where ordinary Iranians were keen to rejoin the international mainstream.

Iran is a complex and deeply diverse country of well over 90 million a critical part of the world. Any war and upheaval in the country would have massive implications for us all. It could also further destabilise the Middle East convulsed by the humanitarian catastrophe caused by Israeli actions in Gaza and the years of war in Syria.

Over the next few days Donald Trump is considering joining Israel’s military action against Iran. For now, Keir Starmer is calling for a diplomatic solution, joining President Macron, who mindful of past failures such as in Libya, warned “the biggest mistake today would be to try to do a regime change in Iran through military means because that would lead to chaos”. The High Representative for Foreign Affairs, and no friend of Iran, Kaja Kallas also remarked that Iran must not be allowed nuclear weapons but that “lasting security is built through diplomacy, not military action”.

However, pressure could well be brought to bear on the British by the White House. The lessons of Iraq and Libya hung heavy over MPs ten years ago. As the situation in the Middle East evolves rapidly, those lessons seem as pertinent today as they did then. Like then, we shouldn’t recommend war and regime change without answering the questions we posed a decade ago. History tells us that we will all pay the price for a rush to war, especially Iranian civilians.

Stephen Gethins is the MP for Arbroath & Broughty Ferry and Professor of International Relations at the University of St Andrews