Is the United States preparing a full-scale invasion of Iran to remove Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei from power, similar to what it did to Iraq’s former president, Saddam Hussein, two decades ago?
It will not be easy. It could be messy and could spill over to other Middle East states, including Israel and other Gulf countries, where there are American military bases.
Iran is no pushover. It has many proxies in the region, like Hezbollah in northern Lebanon and Hamas in the Gaza Strip in Palestine, that could sow terrorism in many areas.
The conflagration may not be that easy to put out.
Over the last few days, there were signs that Washington may use its military option to change the Islamic regime in Tehran, as widespread protests erupted across Iran’s 31 provinces.
The Pentagon has ordered USS Abraham Lincoln and its strike group of guided-missile destroyers, support vessels, and a nuclear-powered attack submarine to steam to the Middle East from its area of operations in the Indo-Pacific region.
There were also reports that a fleet of bombers and fighters was being prepositioned in the Middle East for an immediate strike.
Planning for a major attack on a hard target is not easy. It takes meticulous planning, logistics, and more accurate actionable intelligence on the ground to execute a precise and swift operation.
When the US launched an invasion of Iraq on the pretext of searching for weapons of mass destruction, it was not alone.
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), particularly the United Kingdom, joined the US in a massive military operation.
Washington also took careful planning and positioning of air, land, and sea forces around Baghdad before it crossed into Iraqi borders from the north, south, and east.
The US committed boots on the ground – US Marines and Army – to occupy Iraq, which it failed to do in the first Gulf War in the 1990s.
In Venezuela, early this month, the US also sent a carrier strike group, the USS George Washington, to the Caribbean before the attack.
The pattern is obvious. Prepositioning of lethal forces and logistics comes before a deadly blow.
However, the Iranian game is totally different. It can strike back, raining on the US allies in the region with ballistic missiles, similar to what happened last year.
Washington might need boots on the ground, but its allies are now reluctant to join.
Saudi Arabia may not allow the US to use its airspace and territory to launch an attack.
Washington’s staunchest ally, Israel, cautioned it against attacking Tehran at this time.
NATO is too busy supporting Ukraine against Russia, and the Indo-Pacific allies worry over Chinese activities in disputed waters in the East and South China Sea.
Beijing is the wild card, as there were strong indications that it was helping Tehran, sending important war materiel to defend against Washington’s imminent strike.
There was also a Chinese presence in other conflicts around the world, including in Ukraine and in Venezuela.
Chinese and Russian activities in the Arctic region were largely behind the US obsession with annexing Greenland and expanding its military bases on its icy territory.
Thus, an American action in Iran is just another entanglement with China, which saw its influence falling like dominoes after Venezuela.
Beijing was helpless in Venezuela. It was half the world away, and its military equipment, particularly its radar systems, was useless in America’s precision attack.
Thus, from faraway South America, Africa, the Middle East, and closer to home in the Indo-Pacific region, China’s interests are pitted against the US, which struggles to remain a global dominant power.
It seems to be the new world order.
US must not intervene, Iran must decide on its fate
Does the Philippines have interests in Iran?
Certainly, the Philippines used to export fresh fruits, like bananas and pineapples, to Iran. In return, it imports crude oil from Tehran.
Two-way trade between the Philippines and Iran had dropped after Manila was forced to follow the economic sanctions imposed by the United States due to its program to develop nuclear weapons.
However, the Philippines supported Iran’s peaceful nuclear energy program.
It also had forged a close intelligence cooperation to prevent the radical Islamic State militants from gaining a foothold in the southern Philippines.
Relations between the two countries were established in 1964, and the Philippines had maintained its diplomatic mission in Tehran even after the Islamic Revolution in 1979, which ended more than five decades of monarchy under the Shah of Iran.
As public protests against the repressive Khamenei regime widened in hundreds of cities and 31 provinces, Iran can, perhaps, learn a lesson from the Philippines in terms of how a peaceful popular uprising can change a regime.
In 1986, a large segment of the Philippine population supported a military faction that launched a failed coup against abusive and harsh dictator, Ferdinand Marcos Sr.
The US also played a role in the regime change, persuading Marcos to give up and flew him and his family out of the presidential palace to an American air force base and later to the US territory.
Marcos died in exile in Hawaii three years later without voluntarily returning an estimated $10 billion looted from the country.
Will Washington intervene in the domestic affairs of a former ally and help install a more friendly government?
Iran’s situation is complicated.
The protests, which began in late December, were largely fueled by the collapse of the economy: a free falling currency, high inflation rates, and loss of public confidence due to a fiscal deficits and economic mismanagement.
The 86 year-old cleric has been in power since 1989 and appeared to withstand the protest, using the Islamic Revolutionary Guards to crack down on dissent.
Thousands were reported killed and tens of thousands were detained as Khamenei’s army tried to end the protests.
Despite the widening popular protests, the leaders are divided, making it difficult to topple the Khamenei regime.
Some wanted the return of the monarchy while others, most from ethnic Azeris, rejected both the Khamenei clerical rule and the return of the Shah monarchy.
Iran’s neighbors, who are majority Sunni Muslims in contrast to Shia Iranian Muslims, refused to intervene.
In the event the US will bomb Iran again, Tehran could retaliate on Jewish and American interests in the Middle East.
Besides, there’s danger Iranians could support the government against a foreign intervention.
Instead of launching air strikes, which may not take out Iran’s leaders, US allies in the region wanted Washington to leave it to the people of Iran to decide to change the regime.
Perhaps, more economic sanctions on Iran would work because it had contributed to the Iranian rial’s decline by 75 percent and a 40 percent inflation rate.
The economic hardship could hasten the collapse of the Khamenei regime without military intervention from outside powers.
The Philippines must stand with the Iranian’s people struggle for a regime change.
But it must also advocate a peaceful change and not through military intervention to remove theocratic Iranian leaders.