Doug Schoen: Why Israel's strike against Iran may trigger regime change like Serbia

NewYou can listen to Fox News articles now!
President Donald Trump’s extraordinary decision to attack three main/critical Iranian nuclear sites has two questions: First, how does the Iranian people react to this decision? Second, will this hurt or help change the opportunity of the regime?
Of course, we won't get answers to these questions immediately. But I think it is fair to say that in the not too far away past, history provides an inspiring guide to what might happen.
While it is a challenge to answer these questions with high certainty at this point, the historical analogy I deeply engage in may provide insights.
Trump hints at changes in the Iranian regime while announcing “make Iran great again” after our strike
I was one of the main actors in the State Department’s advice on the situation in Serbia 24 years ago while working in the Bill Clinton administration. There, I led the ground efforts to prove to the Serbian opposition that President Slobodan could be defeated.
At the time, many in the United States and Serbia believed that the nearly 80 days of the NATO bombing and the 1999 Kosovo War had held rallies around the flag effect in support of Milosevic.
However, the polls I ended up conducting showed the opposite.
Data show that despite the regime's efforts to portray Milosevic as strong and popular, he has a 70% rating, but he has a 70%.
As the Washington Post admitted at the time, the strategic guidance I provided based on these polls led to the development of a movement that quickly overthrew a regime that few people thought was so vulnerable.
If the war with Israel leads to a fall in power
There are striking similarities between the fall of Milosevic and the Khamenei regime in what is happening today.
In both cases, some believe that foreign air strikes will strengthen nationalist sentiment while supporting a regime that, despite being very dissatisfied by citizens, preferentially projected aura of popularity.
Furthermore, in Serbia, we find widespread anger towards the government, especially in poor economic conditions. In Iran, similar dissatisfaction with the regime’s long-term misconduct towards economic and national policies (even more intense).
To be sure, there is limited voting data from within Iran, although Stasis, a company specializing in methodological investigations in the country, published a poll last October.
They found that nearly 8 (78%) of Iranians believe that the government’s policies should be attributed to the country’s economic struggle.
Furthermore, in a country with 90 million people (about 60% of the country) under the age of 30, the same poll showed that more than three quarters (77%) of Iranians believed that “the future of Iranian youth is not prosperous in Iran”.
All of this is to say that like the Milosevic regime, the Iranian government seems to have strong public support, but is very weak and fragile under the surface.
The dynamics of Iran's regime change in amid Israel-Tehran conflict
For many, the idea that Israel, especially Benjamin Netanyahu, might bring regime change in Iran is hard to take seriously.
However, a more detailed examination of the current situation and Iran's own recent history supports the notion that Netanyahubi is no more accurate than none.
Consider history: Since 2009, 10 national protest movements have taken place, with millions of Iranians opposing the government on the streets.
Although these protests have many reasons – from blatant election fraud to the latest demonstrations killing Maha Amini – they all highlighted widespread opposition to the current regime.
As I have seen in Serbia, the massive protests and their various reasons show that under the right conditions, the regime can be effectively mobilized and stressed.
To this end, although we have to actively organize the Serbian movement, these conditions are already obvious in Iran and are larger in scale.
Netanyahu calls on Iranian citizens to seize “opportunity” to make regime change
Apart from the bleak future facing Iran’s youth, the regime’s oppression law on its nearly 44 million female citizens has actually turned half of its population into second-class citizens, and hundreds of thousands lost little to no money during the 2022 MAHSA AMINI protests.
Emphasizing the depth of hatred for the regime, the Iran International report received letters of gratitude to Netanyahu, while the Jerusalem Post reported that Iranian sources told them: “This war greatly strengthened the new optimism of the Iranians,” the Iranians’ changes to the regime.
“The dialogue around the capital (Tehran) is concentrated on the last days of the regime and brings it to itself,” a post source inside Iran continued.
Outside Iran, the debate has begun.
On the one hand, leaders such as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, as well as journalists such as former national security adviser John Bolton and Yorktown Institute.
The Pentagon bends the U.S. military’s bait and strategic deception, which surprises Iran and the world
These people argued that – Bolton and Crossey in the Wall Street Journal, Netanyahu spoke to Fox News's Bret Baier and other forums – the most appropriate moment for the Iranian regime to change since the 1979 revolution.
Given the deep reserves of anti-regime sentiment among the Iranian people, it is argued that the best action is that Israel’s destruction of the regime’s military and symbols of power will give the Iranians the courage to unify and oppose the government.
On the other end of the debate are French President Emmanuel Macron and others. Macron was troubled by failed efforts to change the regime, who expressed doubts about the possibility of a successful pursuing regime change, saying it would “cause chaos.”
Some also believe that Israel’s actions may produce “rally around the flag” among the Iranian people and inspire nationalism.
It should be clear that despite reasonable arguments on both sides, based on my experience in Serbia, I believe Netanyahu and the people around him have a much stronger case.
Click here for more Fox News comments
The Iranian government is weaker than ever, destroying its entire chain of command in Israel and still has full control over Iran’s sky.
Similarly, unlike Libya and Iraq, Iran has an organized opposition with a much more sense of national unity than Iraq or Libya once had.
To sum up, there is strong evidence that Israel’s belief is that the Iranian regime may decline, especially given that Israel only targets the symbols of that regime to avoid extreme caution that elicits nationalism.
Of course, encouraging regime change is risky, and it is completely impossible to guarantee that the next regime is the regime that the West wants. This likely leads to a more extreme government led by the remnants of the hard-core people in the Revolutionary Guards.
However, putting this opportunity out of control is a similar range of mistakes. History shows that when oppressed people get angry with the government, find confidence and are supported by support (even with air force alone), the outcome does not have to be chaos, nor is the survival of the current government.
Click here to get the Fox News app
It has and can again lead to real regime change.
In the cases of Iran and Serbia, there has been extensive bombing in the country and even civilians, causing collateral damage to civilians. In the Serbian case, the result of all networks was that it strengthened the determination of the Serbian people to get rid of the authoritarian dictator Milosevic. In Iran's case, if history is any guidance, it will weaken an already vulnerable regime and hopefully provide channels for millions of Iranians who want to measure more freedom and peace in their lives.
Click here to learn more about Doug Schoen