Former U.S. official and political strategist Doug Schoen has drawn a compelling historical comparison between the potential U.S.-led strikes on Iran and the 1999 NATO bombing of Serbia under President Slobodan Milosevic, suggesting that both could lead to the collapse of authoritarian regimes. In an op-ed published by Fox News, Schoen argues that similar to how the bombing of Serbia in 1999 ultimately contributed to the fall of Milosevic, a potential U.S. military action against Iran could expose the fragility of the current regime and catalyze internal opposition.
Schoen, who was a senior advisor to the Clinton administration during the Serbia crisis, emphasizes that while the initial response to airstrikes may be a perceived rallying point for the Iranian government, the long-term effects could be significantly different. In the case of Serbia, despite initial assumptions that the bombing would strengthen the regime, polling data revealed that Milosevic was deeply unpopular, with a 70% unfavorable rating among the population. These insights are used to argue that the Iranian regime, despite its current strength, may share similar vulnerabilities.
Recent polling data from Iran provides further support for this argument. According to a survey conducted by Stasis, an organization specializing in Iranian political surveys, nearly 80% of Iranians believe that the government is responsible for the country’s economic struggles. Additionally, over 77% of Iranians, particularly those under the age of 30, express a sense of pessimism about their economic future. These indicators contrast sharply with the regime’s public image and suggest a deep-seated dissatisfaction that could be exacerbated by external military pressure.
The article also highlights the potential consequences of such actions, including the risk of chaos or the rise of more extreme leadership. Schoen acknowledges that while the possibility of regime change exists, it is not guaranteed. He notes that the Iranian government has historically been resilient and that the outcome of any military action remains uncertain. However, he argues that the combination of internal discontent and external military pressure could create a tipping point, leading to the collapse of the current regime.
On the other side of the debate, some leaders and analysts, such as French President Emmanuel Macron, have expressed skepticism about the likelihood of success in pursuing regime change in Iran, warning that such actions may lead to chaos. Others, including Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and former National Security Advisor John Bolton, have argued that now is the most opportune moment for regime change since 1979, citing the deep-seated opposition and the potential for a unified movement against the current government.
Schoen concludes that, based on his experience in Serbia, the arguments in favor of regime change in Iran are stronger, and the potential for genuine transformation remains significant. Despite the risks, he argues that dismissing the possibility out of hand would be a mistake. The historical precedents, combined with the current situation in Iran, suggest that the possibility of regime change remains both plausible and strategically valuable for those seeking to support a more democratic and stable Iran.