By Wen Shengyan
The Middle East is once again overshadowed by the specter of war. Amid days of intensive bombardment, the US decision-makers have made no secret of their political agenda: to incite regime change in Iran through maximum military pressure and "decapitation strikes," seeking to erect a "liberal" regime from the ruins, one that would unquestioningly follow Washington's lead.
But is this notion of "bombing a new regime into existence" the product of careful strategic planning, or merely a strategic illusion detached from reality? A closer examination of both the historical trajectory and the underlying logic of reality reveals that such a scheme is not only a brazen trampling of international law, but also a blind dash of hegemonism driven by entrenched path dependence.
The US attempts to achieve regime change through bombing. Empirical studies in the field of international relations have repeatedly shown that air strikes intended to trigger political transformation rarely weaken the targeted regime. Instead, they almost inevitably produce a powerful "rally round the flag" effect. To be specific, when national sovereignty is violated by external force, infrastructure is reduced to rubble and civilian casualties mount, nationalist sentiments among the Iranian public are bound to surge. In all likelihood, US bombs will not become the so-called messengers of democracy. Rather, they will squeeze, and potentially eliminate, the political space for moderates and opposition groups within Iran, branding them in the eyes of the public as proxies of foreign interference. Washington may hope that divisions within Iran's elite will trigger "internal strife." In reality, however, the outcome could well be the opposite: faced with external pressure, those same elites may instead close ranks against a common threat, displaying an unprecedented level of unity.
US military adventurism in the Middle East has never lacked cautionary precedents. From Iraq in 2003 to Libya in 2011, Washington has repeatedly resorted to force over the past decades in pursuit of regime change detached from local realities. The results have invariably descended into disaster, leaving painfully clear lessons.
In dealing with Iran, the US once again reveals a fundamental flaw in its approach that it has a plan for destruction but no blueprint for what comes after. Iran is a country of nearly 90 million people with a highly institutionalized state structure. The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is deeply embedded in the country's economic system and security apparatus. The assassination of senior leaders would merely activate a well-established succession and crisis-management mechanism within the system, and could even lead to the military assuming a more direct role in governance. To imagine that a few bombs could shatter the institutions of a complex modern state and somehow allow a compliant civilian government to emerge on its own is nothing more than an expression of hegemonic arrogance.
In fact, this round of military strikes will do nothing to resolve the security predicament of the US in the region. Instead, it is accelerating the strategic blowback against Washington's global posture.
In recent years, the US has sought to shift its strategic focus toward the so-called Indo-Pacific in an effort to sustain its deterrence posture in the Western Pacific. Yet by provoking a war against Iran in the Middle East, Washington now finds itself compelled to redeploy carrier strike groups and air defense systems originally stationed in the Pacific to the Gulf region. Such a predicament by robbing Peter to pay Paul not only creates a growing resource vacuum in its so-called “Indo-Pacific strategy” but also exposes the increasing strain on the US as it struggles to manage multiple geopolitical crises at once.
Facing the rapidly escalating situation in the Middle East, China has consistently stood on the side of international law and human morality. China has made it clear that the US and Israel conducted military actions against Iran without seeking the approval of the UN Security Council or its authorization. The international community must resist any acts that violate international law and prevent double standards. Major powers cannot exploit military superiority to attack other countries at will, and the world must not revert to an age when the "Law of the Jungle" prevails.
History repeatedly shows that power politics leads nowhere. The illusion that "bombing brings democracy" only plunges the region into deeper disaster. If US policymakers continue to indulge in the strategic illusion that regime change can be achieved through air strikes, they will ultimately fail to gain a submissive Iran and instead nurture a more resolute regional adversary that has wholly abandoned restraint.
Security governance in the Middle East requires genuine multilateralism and mutual respect. The immediate priority is to promote ceasefires and halt hostilities, while initiating dialogue and negotiations offers the fundamental path forward. Only by fully abandoning interventionism and reliance on military force, and by genuinely respecting each country's right to choose its own development path, can the Middle East truly break free from the vicious cycle of "violence begets violence" and move toward lasting peace and stability.
(The author is a young scholar specializing in international affairs)
Editor's note: Originally published on zqb.cyol.com, this article is translated from Chinese into English and edited by the China Military Online. The information and opinions in this article do not necessarily reflect the views of eng.chinamil.com.cn.