Has the USA ever tried to change the current system of governance in Iran?

Question

Has the USA ever tried to change the current Ayatollah-led pseudo-democratic government system in Iran?

If so, why are they not succeeding?

If no, why not?

Answer 1

Has the USA ever tried to change the current Ayatollah-led pseudo-democratic government system in Iran?

Kind of. They allocated some funds to Iranian opposition e.g. during the Bush years. Possibly later too, but might have been less overtly.

Aside/BTW, the Trump "maximum pressure" campaign, mostly based on sanctions, ostensibly was not for regime change, just policy change.

---

If so, why are not they succeeding?

From what we know, these were relatively small sums, e.g. $10 million in that Iran Freedom and Support Act.

Also, Iran has yet to suffer the kind of catastrophic defeats that Israel's Arab neighbors have, which did result in regime-changing themselves at least to some degree [i.e. vis-a-vis Israel], albeit with some US encouragement and possibly support.

If you take Egypt for example, it receives billions in US aid (used to be 2nd after Israel in terms of US aid for years, until the Ukraine war threw those stats out the window.) It's not so much regime change that matters than follow-through in supporting a friendly regime (or at least more friendly than plausible alternatives).

Small-budget "regime change" efforts have succeeded sometimes, see e.g. Milosevic, but then one should not overemphasize how much that really changed Serbia: it's still stuck in a sort of half-way house between Russian and EU influence.

And (as some of owari's answer hints), the system and leadership of the Islamic Republic make a Milosevic-type approach less likely to succeed: candidates are [officially] vetted by the leadership, demonstrators are more often shot etc.

Answer 2

[Iranian Viewpoint]

Yes, sure they have tried, like Imam Khamenei has repeatedly said they have tried whatever they could, but with no real success. For example:

The fight is not about some political issues. Well, any two countries may have differences with each other on issues that they can settle by negotiating; and and put an end to it. However, the problem of the Islamic Republic and the arrogant American government is not alike. The problem is of another kind. The problem is more fundamental here. The problem is that the regime of the United States of America claimed, after World War II, to be the world's absolute superpower ... In the middle of the West Asia, Iran was located; which was then a main regional base for them. Around Iran, there were different countries, each of which was more or less under the control of the United States. Of course, the Soviets had made intrusions during this period, but the Americans had the upper hand and this routine had to continue ... In the midst of this ever-increasing arrogant authority and at a most sensitive point, the Islamic Revolution was born in Iran, and the most important slogan of this revolution was to confront oppression and arrogance; It was to defend the rights of nations. The Islamic revolution took this main region, i.e. Iran, out of the control of America. One day, the Americans had people in your country Iran, in your Tehran, in different regions of the country, in all sensitive places, in the armed forces, in the departments related to finance and property, in the sensitive departments of politics, in the security departments, their agents and people were versatile. The king himself, who was the head of all the country's institutions and used to interfere in all affairs, used to listen to the American and British ambassadors. If they wanted something and insisted on it, Shah inevitably obeyed no matter if he wanted it or not. Sometimes he didn't want to, but he had to obey and so he obeyed. From such a region, the Americans were expelled. Well, this was a very important incident, This was no small wound.

...

America was the first government that started to oppose this movement of the people seriously. [Of course] there were other governments who were similarly very unhappy with the situation that happened in Iran, but they did not show such a bold reaction. In the first months of the victory of the revolution, the US Senate issued a strong resolution against the Islamic Republic of Iran. The US practically started hostilities. This was while the American embassy in Iran was still open! Those who think that the relationship with America, friendship with America will make people safe from America's harm, refer to this historical experience. The American embassy was still open in Iran, the Americans could travel easily inside the country, the revolution had not caused them to expel the Americans from Iran. Like other governments, they had embassies and agents. They were living here. At such a time, the American government showed its hostility toward the revolution.

...

America's goal is to regain the control it had over this country during the Shah period. This domination was lost with the Islamic revolution, its hand was shortened. The purpose of this imposition of war, and imposition of embargo, and political and economic pressures, and the like, was to return this domination, but it failed. The US has been trying this for forty years and has not been able to get anywhere in this regard.

...

We have seen an enemy in front of us from the beginning of the revolution until today. From the first hours of the revolution this enemy appeared, became present and started opposing, and this enemy was the government of the United States of America. From the very beginning --of course, when they recovered from their initial confusion and those days when they didn't know what was happening passed-- they started to oppose, to oppose. Till now that we are talking Today, the Americans have carried out all kinds of hostilities and various ruse and tricks to attack the Islamic Republic, that is, you cannot probably name any opposition that they have not already done towards the Islamic Republic. They organized a military coup, incited the ethnic groups, incited Saddam to go to war with Iran and attack Iran, Later during the war they supported him in all kinds of ways, they boycotted us, they exerted influence against us in the United Nations, they advertised against us every noon and night, they used art, they used Hollywood to make movies against us, and did that not only for one or two times, they made military moves at different times, they shot down our civilian plane over the Persian Gulf, some of our centers in the Persian Gulf were attacked, They did all sorts of things against the Islamic Republic: security, political, economic, advertising, cultural objections, all sorts of things. The purpose of all these works was subversion. Now [that] today this notion is expressed explicitly by the American officials, it is nothing new, This was their goal from the first day. Even the same president [i.e., Obama] who repeated and insisted that our goal was not to overthrow, his goal was to overthrow, and this meaning became completely clear later.

[source in Persian, compiled from several different speeches there to clarify further the context]

Also,

This [enemy, the US] is in front of us, it does its best, spends money a lot, and plans a lot, putting all its efforts in dividing people inside Iran [this is a well-known politics in Iran about how the UK was accustomed to go by: "divide and rule"], whether making bold the political divisions, the religious divisions, the ethnic differences, or language differences. These rich governments around our country that are also tricked to grab their monies and resources, are asked for assistance so they can do things against our country as well. They do whatever they can, [but] by the God's grace, their noses are rubbed in the dirt, and they should know that we will continue to move forward with strength. God willing, we will disappoint America in all aspects. Those who used to be at the head of the American government were not staying back doing nothing, they also worked a lot. Reagan was both stronger and wiser than Trump, he actually took action against us, with threats and so much noise in the media. He was a film actor, so that his acting was even better than this one [i.e.Trump], he actually acted against us and they shot down our plane and they did that job. But where is Reagan now? Where is the Islamic Republic now? Today, the Islamic Republic has progressed and grown several times since Reagan's time, in all aspects. Reagan is now caught in divine punishment, his body is rotted and soiled, and his soul, according to the rules we believe in, is busy repaying back to the divine justice system. This new government will not be any different. The Islamic Republic will remain afloat by God's grace, and they will never reach their wish in which the Islamic Republic is weakened or withdrew from the field. [source in Persian]

But why the US with all its ingenious politicians, planners, and scenario writers, technological advances, and etc., yet fails to gain from Iran what it likes? Simply, because a fundamental teaching of Islam is the need to acquire the knowledge about the enemy of the divine religions, the Satan. If Imam Khomeini, the late supreme leader of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the founder of it, once coined the label "great Satan" to the US, it was not out of anger or hatred, but on a firm ground of knowledge about who Satan is and what his methodology is to reach its goals. Imam Khomeini was a great Shia Muslim scholar and not a regular politician, many Islamic scholars still teach Imam's Islamic theories to new students. We are told a lot about the Satan in Quran and Ahadeeth, and also about the methodologies he has used against the humanity during the past several thousands years. The US government is a really good fit for being a great Satan in how it works, according to how we understand the issues. As a simple example, one thing that we know from Islam is to not let the Satan get close to us, as even simply hearing to it can easily make many regular politicians to be deviated from the right path. Imam Khamanei once addressed this issue by:

I am very concerned [about negotiating with America]. This concern is caused by the fact that the other party is extremely prone to deception and lies, breaching promises, and moving in the opposite direction; the other side is like this. An example happened in this case; After our negotiators finished their negotiations, after a few hours the statement of the White House was published explaining the negotiations. This statement they published --which they call a "fact sheet"-- is often against the truth. That is, the narrative they offer about the negotiations and the understandings that have been made is a distorted, false and untrue narrative... Of course, I was never optimistic about negotiations with America. Not because of an illusion but because of experience. We have experienced it.

...

The rationality is that a person should respond to such an enemy with wisdom, with tact, with caution, by not being deceived, by not approaching the field of her conspiracy, by not entering the field that she has drawn, with these precautions.

...

They say that we want to solve our problems with Iran... They say that we want to negotiate and solve our problems with Iran. this is what they say, but in practice, they engage in sanctions, they engage in false propaganda, they say inappropriate things, they constantly spread false information regarding the Islamic Republic of Iran and the people of Iran... American statesmen talk illogically. With an illogical interlocutor, one cannot sit and talk relying on logic ... Well, he is unreasonable. Irrational means pushy, it means talking nonsense. This is a fact that we have found clear during these thirty years in dealing with various global issues. We understand who is on the other side and how to treat him.

...

In this issue, in the issues related to the region, in the various issues that we have, in the problems that we have with America and the likes of America, it cannot be solved by negotiation, We have to choose a path ourselves, and go that way... Our political and diplomatic officials say frankly that the Americans want to take everything, [but] not give anything! [If] you take one step back, they will take one step forward ... The problem of negotiation is: ... when you negotiate, it means you give one point, take another point; This is the meaning of negotiation ... He takes from you what you should give, [but] he doesn't give you what he should give, he bullies, that's what arrogance means, global arrogance means that, it means bullying, thinking oneself superior, not sticking to one's word, not taking any responsibility. This is the meaning of arrogance. He breaks his promises. Well, our honorable Imam said: America is the great devil. This interpretation is really a wonderful interpretation. Almighty God narrates the words of Satan that Satan will say to those who obeyed him on the Day of Judgment: Indeed, Allah had promised you the promise of truth. And I promised you, but I betrayed you. Satan tells his followers that God had given you a truthful promise, you did not follow God's promise, you did not abide by it; but I gave you a false promise, and you followed me! I broke my promise, I promised you and I broke it; Satan blames his followers like this in the Day of Judgment. Then God Almighty says about the words of the devil that he tells them: So do not blame me, but blame yourselves. This is exactly the case with America today. Now Satan is saying this in the Day of Resurrection, Americans are saying this in the world today. They promise, they don't act, they violate. They take the credit score, they don't give the credit score. This is the situation with America.

[source in Persian]

This was one aspect of the issue ... Identifying the US and the global arrogance system as the great Satan, Iran has a rich school of thought and great many resources on how to withstand US and yet defeat it even if it is apparently a superpower.

So in essence, Iran has identified the US as the great Satan, and being familiar with how Satan works according to Islamic teachings, Iran knows what is going on behind the scene and is not deceived by US designed plans, so has always found the right path to survive

Answer 3

The answer is no. Despite the Islamic Republic's animosity towards the US, the American government hasn't engaged in any official or serious effort to change the regime in Iran yet. There have been situations in which Iran and the US were on the brink of war or when tensions were very high, but the United States showed that, despite favorable opportunities, it didn't have any intention to change the regime.

• In 1979, nine months after the Islamic Revolution, the Iranian regime took American diplomats hostage. In April 1980, the US tried to release the hostages in a limited operation called Eagle Claw. The operation failed, and the US didn't pursue a more extensive offensive. Given the unstable situation in Iran after the revolution, the regime was very vulnerable.

• Operation Praying Mantis: After Iran mined an American warship in the Persian Gulf, the US launched a retaliatory attack, destroying many of Iran's naval assets in April 1988. This battle took place towards the end of the Iran-Iraq War. After eight years of war, the US could have easily overthrown the regime.

• After the 9/11 attacks, the US tried to change the Middle East. It changed the regimes in Afghanistan (2001) and Iraq (2003), Iran's eastern and western neighbors, and President Bush designated Iran as part of the Axis of Evil in 2002, along with North Korea and Iraq. After the invasion of Iraq in 2003, it was assumed that Iran would be the next target, but it didn't happen.

• In 2009, during the widespread demonstrations in Iran, known as the Green Movement, some American senators, like J. McCain, proposed supporting the movement and regime change. However, the then US government opted for negotiating with the regime, and these negotiations led to the JCPOA.

• On January 2020, after the assassination of Iranian general, Qassim Soleimani, Iran and the US were close to a direct confrontation but nothing happened.

But why didn't the US try to change the regime? It is difficult to say. I think the US and the West in general supported Iran after the Second World War, mainly because they needed a strong ally against the Soviet Union in the region. After 1979, they didn't try to change the regime because:

• After the Islamists seized power in 1979, they understood that Iran wasn't going to become a Soviet ally, so they didn't need regime change. After 1991 and the fall of the USSR, this danger was completely removed.

• From 1991 to 2011, the Islamic Republic wasn't a major problem. They organized some terrorist attacks, like in Lebanon in 1983 with the help of their proxies, without assuming responsibility.

• After 2011, the US decided to reduce its presence in the Middle East. This was the beginning of the Syrian revolution. Iran began its expansionist adventures and sent troops to Syria from 2012 to quell protests. After 2015, when the Syrian regime used chemical weapons and crossed what the US had declared as a red line, Iran became emboldened, and after a while, Russia entered the scene, making things more complicated.

In short, the US has not supported any regime change in Iran since 1979 despite constant tensions, and the reason is probably that they didn't see the need for it and thought the consequences of such attempts would outweigh the benefits. Anyway, the US doesn't have good experiences with intervention in Iran. The 1953 coup d'etat and negotiations with Khomeini shortly before the revolution in 1979 have long been the subject of criticism.