US Strikes Iran: Mounk and Fukuyama Discuss Unpredictable Conflict

US Strikes Iran, Experts Warn of Unpredictable Aftermath

In a significant escalation of regional tensions, the United States and Israel launched extensive strikes against Iran on Saturday, February 28th, shortly after 5:00 p.m. EST. The unprecedented military action, seemingly initiated by the Trump administration, has drawn immediate concern and analysis from leading political scientists Yascha Mounk and Francis Fukuyama. Speaking on a Substack live event, later to be released as an episode of “The Good Fight,” the experts dissected the potential ramifications of this “war of choice,” questioning its objectives, predicted outcomes, and broader geopolitical implications.

Uncertainty Surrounds Initial Reports and Objectives

Early reports, amplified on social media, suggested the potential death of Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei. However, Fukuyama cautioned against accepting unverified information, stating, “I don’t believe almost any of the information I’m seeing, especially on social media.” He noted that while a direct announcement from President Trump regarding Khamenei’s demise might be credible, much of the other information, including videos of missile strikes and alleged popular unrest, remains difficult to authenticate. This initial uncertainty highlights the chaotic information environment surrounding major geopolitical events.

Mounk pointed out the irony of Donald Trump, a president who had advocated for “isolationism” and criticized “disastrous wars of choice” during previous administrations, now engaging in such a conflict. Fukuyama, drawing on his past research, theorized that Trump’s foreign policy playbook often involves “massive attacks that would move very quickly” to present a fait accompli. However, he observed that the current situation in Iran appeared “quite different” and unlikely to be resolved within a 24-48 hour timeframe.

Decapitation Strikes: A History of Unpredictability

“The conclusion from looking at these other cases is that they’re very unpredictable and they almost always don’t achieve the political end that has been sought.”

Fukuyama elaborated on the historical precedent of “decapitation attacks,” referencing a study by his former Rand colleague, Steve Hosmer. The study, which examined such strikes from World War II onwards, concluded that they are inherently unpredictable and rarely achieve their intended political objectives. Unlike targeted strikes on specific facilities or individuals that might leave a power structure intact, an attack aimed at eliminating senior leadership, Fukuyama argued, is likely to lead to significant internal instability.

He explained that even without top leadership, well-organized and armed entities like the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and the Basij militia have a strong vested interest in preserving their power and survival. This could result in internal power struggles within the regime and increased conflict between the state and the population. Fukuyama stressed that such a scenario would be “extremely difficult to control,” unlike a single strike on a facility. He drew parallels to the limited effectiveness of strategic bombing campaigns, noting that without a ground force presence, controlling the chaotic aftermath of decapitation strikes is nearly impossible, necessitating prolonged military engagement.

Internal Instability and the Future of the Iranian Regime

The discussion turned to the internal dynamics of the Islamic Republic. While acknowledging the existence of loyalists and hardliners, Mounk highlighted the “deep discontent in the Iranian population,” evidenced by recent protests met with “extraordinary force and brutality.” He questioned the extent to which the IRGC, deeply involved in the economy, remains committed to the theocratic nature of the regime versus simply preserving quasi-military rule.

Fukuyama suggested that the regime had already been destabilized by the strikes, unlike the situation in Venezuela where the removal of Nicolás Maduro left a more intact power structure. He described Iran’s system as more complex, with deeply entrenched groups like the IRGC and Basij. The critical question, he posited, is whether these forces will continue to suppress dissent or turn on each other. “The only thing you can really predict at this point is that it’s going to be very chaotic and there’s going to be I think a lot of follow-up violence,” he stated.

Regional Ramifications and Iran’s Retaliation

The experts also addressed the regional implications. Mounk noted a difference in Iran’s response compared to previous incidents. While a June strike saw a delayed and circumspect retaliation, the recent response came within two hours and targeted multiple countries, including Saudi Arabia, potentially drawing them into the conflict. However, Fukuyama assessed Iran as being “pretty weak at this point,” suggesting their retaliatory actions, while perhaps causing occasional damage, were unlikely to trigger a wider regional war. He pointed out that Iran’s key allies, Hezbollah and Hamas, have been significantly weakened, limiting their capacity to initiate further conflicts.

The primary arena for conflict, Fukuyama argued, would remain internal to Iran, focusing on the regime’s survival, leadership, and its relationship with the population. He considered the possibility of regime overthrow as plausible, which would then raise complex questions about establishing a stable alternative to the Islamic Republic since 1979.

Trump’s Objectives and the Specter of Quagmire

The conversation returned to Donald Trump’s role and potential objectives. Mounk questioned whether the US could dictate the pace of escalation and de-escalation, and whether Trump risked falling into a “quagmire” similar to those experienced in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Fukuyama expressed doubt about Trump’s clearly defined objectives, suggesting they might be more politically motivated, aimed at distracting from domestic policy failures. He speculated that if Trump’s goal was regime change leading to a stable democracy, it was an unlikely outcome given the complexities involved. Alternatively, if the objective was merely the “decapitation” of leadership, Trump might declare “mission accomplished” and withdraw, leaving Iran to face a potentially messy civil war. Fukuyama concluded that Trump likely lacked both the intention and the capacity to foster a stable successor regime, potentially leaving the US and Israel presiding over instability they created.

Defining Victory in a Chaotic Landscape

Mounk probed how Trump might claim victory, referencing past instances where he declared success based on limited objectives, such as the claimed “decapitation” of Iran’s nuclear program or the capture of Nicolás Maduro.

Fukuyama suggested Trump’s definition of victory would be politically driven, tied to American public opinion rather than on-the-ground realities. He reiterated the possibility that Trump might claim success after eliminating key leaders, leaving the subsequent internal conflict to the Iranian people. The prospect of achieving genuine regime change, Fukuyama emphasized, is exceptionally difficult, as demonstrated by the experiences in Afghanistan and Iraq. He believes Trump may not need to achieve full regime change if public opinion supports his actions based on limited objectives.

Potential Scenarios for Post-Regime Iran

Mounk entertained the “best-case scenario” of a genuinely democratic Iran, fulfilling the aspirations of a significant portion of its population. However, he acknowledged the low likelihood due to the vested interests of the military apparatus.

Fukuyama contrasted this with Venezuela, where an organized émigré community and a more recent power structure existed. In Iran, he argued, the opposition is fragmented, lacking a unifying figure like Venezuela’s María Corina Machado. While Reza Pahlavi’s son has been mentioned as a potential successor, Fukuyama stressed the difficulty of unifying a disparate opposition and the longer entrenchment of the Iranian state apparatus since 1979 compared to Venezuela’s post-Chavez era.

A more imaginable scenario, Mounk proposed, involves powerful military leaders liberalizing the regime, potentially moving away from its theocratic nature while retaining control. This raises questions about the role of ideology versus realist self-interest in foreign policy choices.

Fukuyama shared insights from Iranian friends in the democratic opposition who believe Iran could become highly secular due to widespread hatred of the current Islamic dictatorship. He also noted a pattern of ideological regimes gradually transforming into corrupt authoritarian states, citing Cuba and Venezuela as examples. He posited that self-interest, particularly economic, might now be the primary motive for many in the IRGC and Basij, rather than ideology. He also suggested that pent-up anger and desperation in Iran, fueled by economic collapse and inflation, could be more intense than in Venezuela, making stabilization harder even for pragmatic military leaders.

Israel’s Position and Shifting Global Perceptions

The discussion then shifted to Israel’s strategic position, particularly in the wake of the October 7th attacks and its subsequent military operations. Mounk noted that while Israel has achieved military successes, it has come at a high humanitarian cost and has led to increased international isolation. He cited a recent US poll indicating that for the first time, more Americans sympathize with the Palestinian cause than the Israeli cause, particularly among younger demographics.

Fukuyama described the political damage to the Netanyahu government since October 7th as “the single most damaging thing” Israel has suffered. He highlighted the erosion of support for Israel among younger Americans and warned that the overt use of military force, characteristic of both Netanyahu and Trump, alienates these demographics. He stressed the importance of retaining legitimacy, which he believes is being undermined by current actions, regardless of immediate geopolitical outcomes.

Both experts expressed concern over Israel’s potential vulnerability during future moments of weakness, economic crisis, or diminished US support. They noted a disturbing trend of increasing polarization within the US, with extreme elements on both the right and the left expressing hostility towards Israel, a phenomenon Fukuyama described as a “horseshoe effect.”

Conclusion: A Volatile Future

The conversation concluded with a sense of profound uncertainty regarding the immediate and long-term consequences of the US strikes on Iran. The experts agreed that the situation is highly volatile, with the potential for prolonged internal conflict within Iran, unpredictable regional spillover, and significant shifts in geopolitical alliances. The actions taken by the US and Israel, while potentially achieving short-term objectives, carry substantial risks of exacerbating instability and undermining their own long-term strategic interests and global standing. The coming weeks and months will be critical in determining whether this escalation leads to a de-escalation, a protracted conflict, or a fundamental reshaping of the Middle East.

Source: Yascha Mounk and Frank Fukuyama on the attack on Iran (YouTube)