ThinkTankWeekly

Trump Should Aim to Neutralize the Iran Regime, Not Destroy It

CFR | 2026-03-19 | middle_east

Topics: Indo-Pacific, Middle East, Nuclear, Russia, Ukraine, United States

Visit original source

ThinkTankWeekly provides a curated entry and summary only. Full text and PDF remain on the publisher's website.

English Summary

Charles Kupchan argues that the Trump administration should pursue a strategy of neutralizing Iran's regime rather than attempting to topple it, advocating for an 'Islamic Republic 2.0' with moderate leadership and strict constraints on its nuclear, missile, and proxy capabilities. He draws on the disastrous outcomes of U.S.-led regime change in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria to warn that dismantling the Islamic Republic would likely produce state fracture, civil war, and regional instability rather than democracy. The article notes that Iran's deeply embedded security apparatus—over one million troops plus paramilitary forces—makes regime collapse unlikely through airpower alone, while arming ethnic minorities risks igniting a multi-country civil war. Kupchan recommends focusing military strikes on degrading Iran's military capability while maintaining diplomatic channels to pragmatic Iranian elites, arguing that a defanged regime, even if imperfect, is far preferable to the chaos of state collapse.

中文摘要

乔治城大學教授乔尔斯·库普坎(Charles Kupchan)主張,川普政府應採取「中和」伊朗政權的策略,而非試圖推翻它。他倡議打造一個「伊斯蘭共和國2.0」,由溫和派領導並對其核武、飛彈及代理人能力施加嚴格限制。庫普坎援引美國在阿富汗、伊拉克、利比亞及敘利亞推動政權更迭的災難性後果,警告瓦解伊斯蘭共和國極可能導致國家分裂、內戰及區域動盪,而非民主轉型。文章指出,伊朗根深蒂固的安全體系——逾百萬正規軍加上準軍事部隊——使得僅憑空中打擊難以促成政權崩潰,而武裝少數族裔則有引發跨國內戰的風險。庫普坎建議將軍事打擊聚焦於削弱伊朗的軍事能力,同時保持與伊朗務實派菁英的外交管道,認為一個被「去爪」的政權即便不完美,也遠優於國家崩潰所帶來的混亂。

Related Entries

  1. 1.
    2026-07-13 | china_indopacific | 2026-W29 | Topics: China, Europe, Indo-Pacific, Middle East, NATO, Nuclear, Russia, Taiwan, Trade, Ukraine, United States

    The China-Russia partnership is a highly consequential geopolitical alignment driven by a shared goal of countering U.S. hegemony and reshaping the international order into a multipolar system. While not a formal alliance, this relationship is strengthened by Russia's increasing economic reliance on China following Western sanctions, which allows Beijing to leverage its influence. Policymakers should note that while the partnership projects deep solidarity (as seen in high-level summits), it remains complex and limited by mutual mistrust and competing strategic interests. This enduring alignment poses a significant challenge to U.S. interests and requires continued diplomatic vigilance.

    Read at Brookings

  2. 2.
    2026-07-13 | defense | 2026-W29 | Topics: Europe, Indo-Pacific, Middle East, NATO, Nuclear, Russia

    The Chatham House analysis concludes that the UK's Defence Investment Plan (DIP) will be viewed by NATO allies as a mixed bag, primarily due to its failure to commit to higher GDP spending targets. However, the plan signals critical strategic improvements by emphasizing novel technologies—such as autonomous systems and digital infrastructure—and enhancing readiness. Crucially, the DIP adopts an international focus through major collaborative programs (e.g., AUKUS, GCAP) and establishes a new National Armaments Director Group (NADG). This structural shift toward flexible, portfolio-based collaboration is strategically valuable for NATO allies seeking reliable partners as US conventional forces reduce their European presence.

    Read at Chatham House

  3. 3.
    2026-07-13 | defense | 2026-W29 | Topics: China, Europe, Indo-Pacific, Middle East, NATO, Russia, Ukraine, United States

    The article argues that the U.S., through recent policy signals—such as questioning NATO's value or sympathizing with great-power territorial claims—is inadvertently adopting the core tenets of non-alignment, prioritizing transactional national interests over binding alliances. Historically, while non-alignment allowed developing nations to gain benefits without commitment, the analysis notes that this approach lacks the deep trust and shared obligations necessary for robust security structures. The implication is critical: by undermining established alliances, the U.S. risks losing its greatest strategic asset—the network of mutual commitments—as allies actively seek alternative bilateral or regional defense pacts.

    Read at CFR

  4. 4.
    2026-07-13 | health | 2026-W29 | Topics: United States

    The roundtable established that implementing generational bans represents a powerful, long-term strategy for tackling deeply entrenched public health crises like tobacco use. Using the UK’s permanent ban on selling cigarettes to those born after 2009 as key evidence, experts analyzed how such policies fundamentally alter market dynamics and consumer behavior over time. These lessons suggest that other nations facing persistent addiction challenges should consider adopting similar age-gating or generational restrictions to accelerate decline and set a precedent for future public health policy interventions.

    Read at CFR

  5. 5.
    2026-07-13 | energy | 2026-W29 | Topics: Climate, Trade, United States

    The CSIS analysis finds that the U.S. grid's regulatory framework for connecting large loads is severely fragmented and unprepared for the massive electricity demands posed by AI data centers. FERC has mandated significant reforms across six regional operators, requiring them to modernize interconnection studies, prevent cost-shifting, and establish clear tariffs for co-located generation. Evidence shows that most operators fall far short of these new standards, necessitating complex, multi-year policy adjustments rather than simple compliance. Policymakers must coordinate federal regulation (FERC) with state utilities to accelerate grid modernization, ensuring energy affordability while maintaining technological competitiveness.

    Read at CSIS