The Proxy War Fallacy: Cruz’s Regime Change Prescription for Iran

The Trump administration’s handling of the US-Iran conflict has been marked by oscillations between military strikes and diplomatic overtures. A deepening rift within the GOP about how to deal with Tehran has exposed those who favor a more assertive use of American military power and those increasingly skeptical of it.

At the center of this dispute is Republican Sen. Ted Cruz’s call for arming Iranian protesters, aimed at regime collapse. On its surface, this approach may seem appealing as a way to avoid sending “American boots on the ground.” However, it raises questions about the feasibility and desirability of such a policy.

Cruz’s prescription for Iran has been around since late January, after Tehran cracked down on widespread protests that resulted in an estimated 12,000 deaths. His advocacy for arming Iranian protesters has gained traction within some quarters of the Republican Party, with even Vice President JD Vance defending the administration’s strategy.

However, Cruz’s approach ignores a fundamental reality about modern proxy wars: they rarely end well. The experience of Afghanistan and Iraq serves as a stark reminder of the catastrophic consequences that can follow when external powers try to impose regime change on unwilling populations. In both cases, interventionist zealotry led to decades-long occupations with deep scars.

The parallels between Iran and these earlier conflicts are striking. Tehran is not just a rogue state; it’s also a highly complex society with multiple factions vying for power. The US failed to anticipate the rise of the Taliban or Al-Qaeda in Iraq, and Washington today seems woefully unprepared for the unintended consequences that would follow from arming Iranian protesters.

Not everyone shares Cruz’s skepticism about the administration’s Iran policy, however. A growing number of Republicans are questioning the wisdom of striking a deal with Tehran, including Sen. Bill Cassidy and Sen. Tom Cotton. Their concerns merit serious consideration.

The proxy war fallacy has become a defining feature of American foreign policy in the Middle East. Rather than repeating the mistakes of the past, policymakers should work towards a more nuanced understanding of the complex dynamics at play in Iran. This requires engaging with the various factions within Tehran, rather than relying on simplistic solutions like regime change.

The notion that arming Iranian protesters would somehow avoid the messy realities of foreign intervention is a myth that needs closer examination. History has shown us time and again that external powers often exacerbate local conflicts rather than resolving them.

In Afghanistan, for instance, the US-backed mujahideen insurgency led to the rise of the Taliban, which eventually became the primary opponent of American forces. Similarly, in Iraq, the US-led invasion created a power vacuum that allowed Al-Qaeda to flourish.

The parallels with Iran are striking. Arming Iranian protesters could lead to unintended consequences, including the empowerment of extremist groups or the destabilization of neighboring countries.

Regime change has rarely been successful in achieving its stated goals. The overthrow of Saddam Hussein in Iraq led to a prolonged occupation and sectarian violence, while the US-backed ouster of Muammar Gaddafi in Libya created a power vacuum that allowed extremist groups to flourish.

As policymakers grapple with these complexities, it’s essential to consider the long-term implications of arming Iranian protesters. Will this lead to a more stable or less stable Iran? Will it empower moderate forces within Tehran or create new opportunities for extremism?

These questions require serious consideration as we navigate the treacherous landscape of American-Iranian relations.

The US-Iran conflict is far from over, and the debate within the GOP about how to deal with Tehran will only intensify in the coming months. Policymakers should work towards a more nuanced understanding of the complex dynamics at play in Iran by engaging with various factions within Tehran and exploring ways to address underlying issues driving the conflict.

Ultimately, it’s not just about what happens in Iran; it’s also about what this means for American national security and global stability. As we navigate these treacherous waters, one thing is clear: we’re playing with fire if we think that arming Iranian protesters will magically resolve our differences with Tehran.