Why would the US want a war with Iran?

Unlike the decision to go to war with Iraq in 2003, which was backed by a large majority of Americans as the general public was convinced Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, today’s potential war with Iran is not popular. Beyond the fact it would probably have a very negative effect on the current administration’s favorability, the important question is: What is this a war for? What would be the outcome and how would it serve US interests?

Many regional countries have been lobbying the US administration not to strike Iran, as no one wants to see a regional war. No one except Israel wants to see Iran unravel and break apart. No one wants to handle the spillover of a potential war. They have all lived through the negative consequences of the fall of the regime in Iraq and do not want a sequel to that horror movie. To increase the pressure on the US and distance themselves from any military action, they have announced that they will not allow their territories or airspace to be used to attack Iran. Even the UK has reportedly informed the US that it does not want any part in this sinister ploy.

Most importantly, what would the US gain from a war on Iran? To answer that question, we need to examine the scenarios that could arise. The first scenario is that the Tehran regime is weak enough that an attack would make it fall. Despite the fact that no one in the region would shed a tear over the fall of the regime, they definitely do not want this to happen — and for good reason.

The regime change that Israel is advocating for will be messy. It would not be like Syria. The context in Syria was different

Dr. Dania Koleilat Khatib

To start with, there is no alternative to the regime. The US is propping up Reza Pahlavi, the exiled son of Iran’s ousted shah, but he has no connection with the people. He even admitted as much in an interview. How is he supposed to run the country? To add to that, the regime of his father was known to be dictatorial and brutal, so not a real upgrade from what the Iranians currently have.

In a nutshell, there is no credible opposition that could take over and control security. The regime change that Israel is advocating for will be messy. It would not be like Syria. The context in Syria was different. When the Russians came to save Bashar Assad in September 2015, they went to all the rebel groups and told them that they must either join or accept Assad and lay down their arms or move to Idlib. They put all rebel groups in Idlib. The idea was to separate the rebels from Assad and to broker a deal that would be beneficial to Russia. This did not work because Assad did not want to make any compromises.

However, since 2015, there had been an opposition in Idlib under Turkish tutelage. Extremist groups like Hurras Al-Dine and factions of Hayat Tahrir Al-Sham were eliminated. Therefore, when Assad fell, there was someone ready and able to take over.

There is no similar scenario in Iran. If the regime were to suddenly fall, the state would fall. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps would splinter into various groups and we would have chaos in the region and a rise in terrorist activity. Now, despite the nuisance created by Iran’s proxies, there is at least a reference. If the regime fell, there would be no reference. The region would be flooded with violent gangs for hire accountable to no one. Also, the fall of the regime might trigger secessionist movements, particularly among the Kurds in the vicinity of Turkiye and groups in the Sistan and Balochistan province bordering Pakistan. This would be bad news for both Pakistan and Turkiye, two important US allies.

A war would lead to chaos, which the US and its allies would have to contain. Iraq showed that this is a messy task

Dr. Dania Koleilat Khatib

The other option would be a “limited strike,” as US President Donald Trump spoke about on Friday, in order to gain leverage in the negotiations. However, Trump should be careful of the change in Iran’s behavior. One advantage the US had in the past was the limited aid Iran received from America’s foes. Basically, Iran could only count on its proxies. However, as the threat increased and as these proxies became less and less effective, Iran has become more open to cooperating with the US’ rivals, namely China and Russia. During the last wave of protests, Iran was reportedly able to block access to the internet due to help from the Chinese. And a Russian Tu-214PU “Doomsday” aircraft landed in Iran last week, marking a new milestone in the Tehran-Moscow partnership.

Both Russia and China have an interest in engaging with and protecting Iran. For China, Iran is an important source of energy and a vital corridor to connect with Europe through the Belt and Road Initiative. For Russia, it is a way to flex its muscles in the region and counterbalance the US.

A limited strike might put Iran’s nuclear program back or limit its ballistic capabilities for a few months, but it would also push Tehran further toward Russia and China, which is definitely not in the interests of the US. Iran’s constitution prohibits foreign military bases on its mainland. But this might change if Iran was pressured. Does the US want to see Chinese or Russian airbases in Iran? I highly doubt it.

So, what should the US do? It should start by looking after its own interests and not those of Israel. America has no interest in a war with Iran. A war would lead to chaos, which the US and its allies would have to contain. The experience in Iraq showed that this is a pretty messy task. It could also lead to the entrenchment of Russia and China in the region. Both of these developments would be bad for Washington, so it would be better for the US to stick to the negotiations and listen to its allies who do not want a war.

• Dr. Dania Koleilat Khatib is a specialist in US-Arab relations with a focus on lobbying. She is co-founder of the Research Center for Cooperation and Peace Building, a Lebanese nongovernmental organization focused on Track II.