Note: Peaceful Change from Within Iran and the Tillerson Theory

On Wednesday, U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson explained the budget priorities of the State Department in a Foreign Affairs Committee hearing. One representative asked him about the sanctions on the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and U.S. foreign policy towards Iran. In response, he stated, "Our policy regarding Iran is still evolving and has not yet been presented to the President, but I can tell you that we are certainly monitoring Iran's destabilizing role in the region. Iran's payments to foreign fighters, the deployment of militias to Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and Iran's support for Hezbollah... and we are acting against Iranian hegemony." | For the latest news, join Radio Farda's Telegram channel | Analyzing the current situation - it can be concluded that these statements do not indicate the existence of a specific strategy but reveal a framework of thought that could lead to a foreign policy strategy. Following these remarks, Rex Tillerson elaborated on how the U.S. would respond to Iran's actions, emphasizing that the U.S. is considering recognizing the entirety of the IRGC as a supporter of terrorism, just as it recognizes the IRGC's Quds Force as a terrorist supporter. Tillerson's statements to the Foreign Affairs Committee emphasize that Iran's regional actions, especially "arming groups that the U.S. considers terrorist, such as Hezbollah," pose a threat to Israel, America's ally in the region. In countering Iran's policies, Tillerson said, "Our policy towards Iran is to push back against this hegemony, to curb [Iran's] ability to develop nuclear weapons, and to seek to support elements within Iran that lead to a peaceful change of their regime." At least two components of this three-part strategy, namely pushing back hegemony and curbing nuclear weapons production capabilities, are not new and have been pursued in various forms. However, the third element, "supporting elements within Iran that lead to peaceful change," is unprecedented, which many Iranians were hoping to see from the U.S. during the 2009 elections, but the Obama administration did not intervene in that matter. Currently, the Iranian presidential elections have concluded, and Mr. Hassan Rouhani is awaiting the start of his second presidential term. The statement from the U.S. Secretary of State raises questions: - Is the time right to support domestic movements? - What would be the legal and international basis for such support? In response, it can be said that the politically charged atmosphere inside Iran, particularly the meaningful conversations between the leadership and the President and the pursuit of the people's demands, may have led American officials to believe that the time is right to raise such an issue. However, intervention in the internal affairs of another country would certainly lack a legal basis unless the nature of the political system creates conditions under which a foreign country could intervene under the guise of humanitarian intervention. Sanctions are being intensified - On Thursday, just hours before the U.S. Senate approved the comprehensive sanctions plan known as S722 and sent it to the President for signature. Informed officials believe that these sanctions are structured in a way that does not interfere with the nuclear agreement between Iran and the P5+1 and does not undermine it. That morning, the Iranian Foreign Ministry reacted to Tillerson's statements in the House of Representatives, with spokesman Bahram Qasemi referring to the historical background of U.S. intervention and the 1953 coup in Iran, calling Tillerson's remarks "interventionist and a blatant violation of peremptory norms of international law, unacceptable" and condemned it "in the strongest terms." In another reaction, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif called "negotiation" the "only solution" and deemed Rex Tillerson's views as "delusional." He also tweeted: "After decades of pursuing a failed regime change policy and sanctions, the U.S. government was forced to apologize for 1953 and accepted that negotiation is the only solution." These statements and Iran's responses to them seem largely natural from the perspective of two countries with minimal diplomatic relations that cannot engage in any form of de-escalation. However, they do not indicate that relations will remain at this level of verbal tensions. A look at other statements from current and former American officials and other regional events indicates a vague political will that is pushing both countries towards an inevitable friction. War with Iran is a mistake - Jack Sullivan, a significant figure in foreign policy and national security advisor to Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton during President Obama's administration, emphasizes the possibility of military conflict with Iran and the occurrence of another war in the Persian Gulf while rejecting the theory of potential conflict with North Korea. He considers war in the Persian Gulf contrary to U.S. national interests and detrimental to the stability and security of the region, attempting to draw attention to the risk of its occurrence with a warning perspective. This aligns with the German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel's warning about the possibility of war in the Persian Gulf six days prior. Additionally, a Reuters report on military operations by U.S.-backed coalition forces in Syria, particularly in the strategic and border region of Tanf, exacerbates concerns that if a communication route is established by Iran-backed militias in the border triangle of Iraq, Syria, and Jordan (known as Tanf), the likelihood of military confrontation between U.S. forces and Iranians would escalate. In recent days, Iranian boats have directed laser beams at two U.S. warships and a CH-53 helicopter accompanying them while moving in the sensitive Strait of Hormuz. U.S. Army spokesman Bill Urban deemed the use of lasers for identifying ships as unprofessional and dangerous. This is not the first time that U.S. military vessels have complained about Iran's unprofessional actions in the Persian Gulf. Beyond this, regular threats from IRGC commanders regarding U.S. interests in the region ultimately lead to heightened tensions between the two countries. The question arises as to where Rex Tillerson's theory of supporting a peaceful transition of power in Iran originates, given the signs and indications mentioned above. Which of the two theories of resorting to force for change or waiting for change from within can practically occur? Is it merely because the Secretary of State emphasizes "peaceful change" of the regime by "elements from within" that the use of force and military options are no longer on the table? From Tillerson to Trump - In the short time since Donald Trump's administration began, Rex Tillerson has shown on several occasions that he has a different perspective on methods and strategies than the President. For example, while Donald Trump expressed a completely different view on Qatar, Rex Tillerson invited regional governments to cooperate with Qatar. The same is true regarding Iran. Currently, despite the tensions and friction with Iran and despite calls and support from hardline American circles and regional countries to engage Iran in a war, the U.S. has no interest in entering a war with Iran. However, it also does not want to allow Iran to return to the pre-nuclear agreement status or to produce nuclear weapons as soon as conditions are ripe or to elevate its ballistic missile capabilities to a level that threatens America's allies in the region. The U.S. does not want to witness Iran's movements in the region or remain silent in the face of them. Perhaps for this reason, it can be said that the possibility of friction and even limited military operations between the two countries is by no means ruled out. On the other hand, some opposition groups in Iran, labeled as "overthrowers," seek fundamental change in the Islamic Republic regime and hope that in a situation where the U.S. lacks a clear strategy regarding Iran, they can at least attract the support of some American circles and figures, but it is unclear how successful these efforts will be. In contrast, the twelfth presidential election in Iran, which resulted in Mr. Hassan Rouhani's re-election, has created fears and hopes for both domestic and foreign supporters and opponents. Of course, the power of the presidency in Iran, unlike other republican systems, is not uncontested, and even if it is supported by the legislative and, presumably, the judicial branches, it can still be controlled by the Supreme Leader, and all its actions can face deadlock. The time is neither the time for sidelining Banisadr nor the era of the 2009 elections. The leadership's control power cannot be without cost when the compressed ranks of the people demand their wishes. Even if existing differences lead to the President losing his legitimacy with a gesture from the leadership, it is possible that the people will not easily give up their demands. Suppressing demands in the current societal conditions is the worst choice for the regime and a form of ominous totalitarianism or could simply stem from a miscalculation and turn the internal atmosphere into a type of uncontrollable chaos. The power of change from within - If the people's demands are suppressed through the use of force in the internal environment of Iran or by employing what has recently been called "fire-at-will" forces, the country will quickly turn into another Syria. However, if the reasonable demands of the people are accepted and the necessary changes for the Iranian people are realized without resorting to force, it will be the very phenomenon that Tillerson referred to as "the power of change from within." Such a force does not take orders from outside but can be supported. This force potentially exists in Iran. It is a force that has gradually reached this stage with the rules of the game and has matured in every election and will currently insist on its demands for maximum enjoyment of citizenship rights. This could be the very power of change from within that Tillerson referred to.