By Behnam Zoghi Roudsari, Central European University

On June 13, pro-war lobbying groups once again pushed the United States dangerously close to the brink of a full-scale military conflict—another potential ‘forever war’ like Iraq or Afghanistan. Those wars dragged on for nearly two decades, cost US taxpayers an estimated $8 trillion, all without achieving stable outcomes. The risk remains that the U.S. could be dragged into yet another war with Iran—one that carries enormous and unpredictable consequences. Iran regime-change advocates misguided decision-makers who had five rounds of successful diplomatic engagement with Iran by promoting a simplified narrative that the U.S. and Israel could bomb Iran’s military installations from a safe distance, after which the opposition in exile would call on Iranians to rise up and overthrow the government. These groups cite rallies in Europe and Canada, along with strong social media campaigns, as evidence of grassroots support. On paper, it seems like a neat plan. In reality, it is dangerously naïve.

Last summer, while traveling to France, I met an Iranian man on the bus. He seemed overjoyed to find someone who spoke Farsi. “Your face seems familiar—did we meet at a conference?” he asked. The word “conference” confused me; he didn’t seem like an academic at all. I said nothing and let him tell his story. He had sold everything he owned in Iran to pay smugglers and flee the country. He had spent a fortune forging documents that claimed political persecution, hoping to secure asylum. “They promised so much,” he said. “But I don’t have a BMW. I work in a bakery, come home exhausted, with no family or friends around.”

Then he explained what he meant by “conferences.” A political organisation had contacted him—and many others like him—offering trips to cities like Paris and Berlin to attend anti-regime protests. For him, it was a way to travel, make friends, and see Europe. One dream realised: selfies at the Eiffel Tower and Brandenburg Gate.

I immediately recognised the organisation: the MEK (Mojahedin-e-Khalq), an extremist, Marxist-Islamist group delisted from the U.S. Foreign Terrorist Organisation only in 2012, thanks in large part to an aggressive and costly lobbying campaign. Once allied with Saddam Hussein, the MEK even launched an armed offensive against Iran from Iraqi soil in 1988, backed by Saddam’s air force. That operation failed when local civilians in Kermanshah rose up to resist them. In the 1980s, the group carried out multiple waves of political assassinations. Today, they have traded tanks and suicide bombings for hashtags and Twitter campaigns.

The MEK has built a powerful lobbying network and public relations machine, securing dozens of meetings with U.S. policymakers. They have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on lobbying to secure the support of prominent pro-regime change and pro-war political figures, including Mike Pompeo, former Secretary of State during the first Trump administration, who was sidelined later in the administration because his views clashed with the MAGA policy platform. Former Vice President Mike Pence received $430,000 from three MEK-affiliated groups, while Elaine Chao, Trump’s transportation secretary, was paid $50,000 in 2015 for a five-minute speech. Through these connections, the MEK has gained significant influence within U.S. policymaking circles and positioned itself as a credible alternative to Iran’s government.

The Donald Trump administration engaged in five rounds of negotiations with Iranian officials, with a sixth round planned for June 15 in Muscat, Oman. However, this round was cancelled due to the outbreak of war. U.S. officials described the negotiation process as constructive, noting further progress after the fifth round of talks. Despite this, in recent weeks, Iran regime-change lobby groups succeeded in pushing a reluctant U.S. administration toward military action. Their plan was simplistic: bomb Iran’s military infrastructure and expect a spontaneous government collapse, with civilians flooding the streets, supposedly representing the will of the Iranian people—just as they once misguided Saddam Hussein years ago. Yet despite widespread calls for protests, not a single uprising occurred—not in even one rural or urban neighbourhood. Instead, the attacks rallied Iranian society around the flag, with notable Iranian dissidents and former political prisoners publicly expressing support for the government.

To an unbiased observer, this outcome was not surprising. The substantial support for Ebrahim Raisi, the ultra-conservative presidential candidate elected in 2021 in an uncompetitive election where every major contender later joined his government, is telling. Despite a prolonged economic downturn and widespread boycott campaigns by the exiled opposition, Raisi still secured 18 million votes. This suggests that the Iranian government is far from lacking a domestic base. The fantasy of a swift regime collapse overlooks a crucial reality: millions remain loyal to the Islamic Republic and have shown a willingness to defend it steadfastly—just as they did during the brutal eight-year war with Iraq.

Moreover, Iran has demonstrated remarkable resilience under sanctions. A comparison with Venezuela helps illustrate the point. While Venezuela has faced sanctions similar to Iran, the country has plunged into a severe humanitarian crisis. Since 2014, over 7.7 million Venezuelans have fled their homeland, and by 2024, around 70 percent of the population was living in extreme poverty. Iran, while subjected to similarly intense economic pressure during the U.S. “Maximum Pressure” campaign, has avoided such a collapse. In fact, poverty declined under the most stringent economic pressures on this country. According to World Bank data, the Iranian government managed to reduce the poverty rate from 29.1 percent in 2019 to 21.9 percent in 2022, despite the imposition of the ‘Maximum Pressure’ campaign during this period. This represents nearly six million fewer people living in poverty within just three years.

The miscalculations about Iran’s resistance led to Iran launching missiles at Israel and, in a major escalation, bombed the U.S. Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar on June 23. The strike threatened not just American assets but the stability of global oil markets, given the accessibility of other major oil facilities across the region for the Iranian missiles and the strategic position of Strait of Hormuz, a vital artery of energy trade. This reminds the observers of September 2019, when a coordinated drone and missile strike by Houthi forces on Saudi Aramco facilities temporarily cut 5% of global oil supply. Brent crude prices jumped by 20% overnight. That was the Houthis—a far weaker actor than Iran. Even if Iran’s conventional missile systems were neutralised tomorrow, its asymmetric warfare capabilities would remain formidable. Even Iran’s basic drone fleets—similar to those that proved highly effective in the Russia-Ukraine war—are difficult to counter. We observed in Afghanistan how, after two decades of foreign military presence, insurgents regrouped and reclaimed power. In Iran’s case, ideological paramilitary networks could continue to launch devastating attacks on critical oil infrastructure across the region, even in the event of state collapse.

Listening to regime-change lobbyists—many with discredited or violent histories—is not just misguided policy; it endangers U.S. personnel, threatens global markets, and risks igniting a regional conflict with no exit strategy. Repeating the mistakes of Iraq and Afghanistan runs counter to the core values of a government backed by the MAGA electoral base. Iran is not an empty shell poised to collapse—it is a resilient, complex country with a government that still commands loyalty and operational capacity. Any escalation will only further destabilise the region, drag the U.S. into another unwinnable war, and jeopardise global energy security.