{"id":349007,"date":"2026-07-26T15:24:09","date_gmt":"2026-07-26T15:24:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/africa\/349007\/"},"modified":"2026-07-26T15:24:09","modified_gmt":"2026-07-26T15:24:09","slug":"why-regime-change-in-iran-would-not-repeat-the-mistakes-of-iraq-and-libya","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/africa\/349007\/","title":{"rendered":"Why regime change in Iran would not repeat the mistakes of Iraq and Libya"},"content":{"rendered":"

When US Vice President JD Vance<\/a> recently warned against turning Iran into a Libya, he echoed a deep-seated fear shared by many Americans: that regime change in the Middle East inevitably leads to Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya.\u00a0<\/p>\n

This skepticism is understandable, but when applied to Iran, Vance\u2019s comparison is fundamentally flawed and structurally incorrect.<\/p>\n

Iraq and Libya were 20th-century constructs. Prior to the 20th century, neither existed as a unified nation-state. Applying the Iraq or Libya framework to Iran is a severe strategic mistake.<\/p>\n

Iran is fundamentally different, and US engagement there would unfold under conditions that did not exist in any of those previous cases.<\/p>\n

The historical reality of Libya illustrates why this comparison fails. Before the 20th century, the concept of a country named \u201cLibya\u201d did not exist.<\/p>\n

\"IranIran and Iraq map. Ilustration. (credit: SHUTTERSTOCK)<\/p>\n

For several centuries under Ottoman rule, this land consisted of three completely distinct regions with entirely different cultural, tribal, and economic characteristics.<\/p>\n

In 1934, Italy merged these three former Ottoman provinces and gave the unified territory the name Libya.<\/p>\n

Following the fall of Muammar Gaddafi in 2011, and due to the absence of historical roots for a unified nation, the country immediately reverted to its old mosaic structure (the East-West divide) and traditional tribal and regional loyalties.<\/p>\n

Iran presents the absolute opposite case. It is not an artificial state assembled in the 20th century. It is one of the world\u2019s oldest continuous civilizations, with a political identity stretching back millennia.<\/p>\n

Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel famously described Iran as the first historical state in the world. Iran is a society with deep institutional memory, national consciousness, and a shared, deep-seated understanding of sovereignty.<\/p>\n

This matters immensely, because durable political transformation depends on historical continuity, not on invention.<\/p>\n

In Iraq and Libya<\/a>, external interventions attempted to build political systems that had never truly existed before. These societies lacked sustained national cohesion and a shared historical experience of a legitimate, unified central authority.\u00a0<\/p>\n

External intervention dismantled what little top-down structure existed but could not replace it with institutions rooted in local social reality. The result was fragmentation, instability, and prolonged conflict. Iran is built on an entirely different foundation.<\/p>\n

Before the 1979 revolution, Iran was a Western-aligned, US-partnered country with functioning state institutions, a solid constitutional framework, a highly professional bureaucracy, and a large, educated middle class.<\/p>\n

Iran has lived political modernity before. It does not need to invent it from scratch; it needs to restore it.<\/p>\n

Prince Reza Pahlavi<\/a> embodies this experienced future, directly connecting Iran\u2019s deep historical experience to a Western-aligned, stable tomorrow. This historical continuity is not theoretical. It is visible today.\u00a0<\/p>\n

The nationwide demonstrations of 2026 marked a decisive shift in Iranian politics. Protests erupted in every province, major cities, and small towns alike, including regions that historically appeared to have remained outside national political movements.<\/p>\n

These demonstrations cut across religion, language, and regional lines. What emerged was not fragmentation, but re-nationalization, a shared political identity centered squarely on the idea of Iran itself.<\/p>\n

One of the regime\u2019s longest-standing strategies, dividing society through identity politics, has collapsed.<\/p>\n

In Tabriz, the most populous city in the Azerbaijan region, and Kermanshah, the most populous Kurdish city, mass protests openly expressed support for Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi, directly contradicting decades of state propaganda claiming that national unity was fragile.<\/p>\n

The evidence points in the opposite direction. There is no meaningful risk of internal disintegration. Iran today shows more national cohesion than Iraq and Libya ever did before or after US intervention.<\/p>\n

This unity extends beyond Iran\u2019s borders. From Toronto to London, Tokyo to Los Angeles, the Iranian diaspora has mobilized at a scale rarely seen in modern politics. These demonstrations are not disconnected from events inside Iran; they are perfectly aligned with them.<\/p>\n

Iranian communities abroad are among the most educated, economically successful, liberal, and well-integrated immigrant populations in the West. They are loyal citizens of their host countries while remaining deeply committed to Iran\u2019s cultural and historical identity.<\/p>\n

They often carry both flags side by side, reflecting gratitude to the West and hope for a free Iran. This diaspora offers a living preview of Iran\u2019s future: modern, Western-oriented, anti-extremist, and based on the rule of law.<\/p>\n

Strategic and national necessity<\/p>\n

Equally important is a reality often ignored in Washington. Iranians are among the most pro-American societies in the world. Admiration for American values, culture, and political ideals is widespread.<\/p>\n

Repeated nationwide protests against clerical rule demonstrate a clear separation between the Iranian people and the Islamic Republic. The regime represents an imposed ideological project, not Iran\u2019s authentic historical or social identity.<\/p>\n

The level of public hostility and hatred toward the regime has reached a breaking point, especially after the mass killings of tens of thousands of civilians in the winter of 2026.<\/p>\n

The scale of anger and moral clarity is unprecedented. With hundreds of thousands of Iranians abroad openly calling for the overthrow of the Islamic Republic, and asking for US military action, this is something without historical parallel.<\/p>\n

This is not a case where America would be imposing change against popular will. It would be responding to it.<\/p>\n

Removing Iran\u2019s current terrorist regime is not an act of charity; it is a strategic necessity for the long-term national interest of the United States.<\/p>\n

Doing so would eliminate the world\u2019s leading state sponsor of terrorism that has killed thousands of Americans, and establish one of America\u2019s strongest and most reliable allies in the region.<\/p>\n

A post-Islamic Republic Iran<\/a> would not be a failed state or a permanent ward of the United States. It would emerge as a sovereign, influential power, one with shared interests in stability, economic integration, and opposition to extremism with the US.\u00a0<\/p>\n

Where Iraq and Libya lacked historical continuity, national cohesion, and institutional legitimacy, Iran possesses all three. That is why US engagement with Iran would succeed where Iraq and Libya failed.<\/p>\n

History does not repeat itself blindly. When conditions are radically different, outcomes can be too.<\/p>\n

The writer is an Iranian journalist and former editor-in-chief of ManotoTV.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"When US Vice President JD Vance recently warned against turning Iran into a Libya, he echoed a deep-seated…\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":349008,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":"","_share_on_mastodon":"0"},"categories":[34],"tags":[176,44117,168160,36287,15695,1664,2679],"class_list":["post-349007","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-libya","tag-iran","tag-iraq","tag-islamic-regime","tag-jd-vance","tag-libya","tag-middle-east","tag-united-states"],"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"https:\/\/pubeurope.com\/@africa\/116986974270530524","error":""},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/africa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/349007","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/africa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/africa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/africa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/africa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=349007"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/africa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/349007\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/africa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/349008"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/africa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=349007"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/africa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=349007"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.europesays.com\/africa\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=349007"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}