Freedom for Iran: Learning From U.S. Support for Polish Anti-Communists in the 1980s

Original publication: at FDD.org

Introduction

President Donald Trump does not shy away from breaking taboos that limit his policy choices. “It’s not politically correct to use the term, ‘Regime Change,’” he observed on Truth Social, “but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn’t there be a Regime change???”

It remains to be seen whether the Trump administration will adopt a policy of actively promoting regime change in Iran, where mass demonstrations have repeatedly called for an end to the clerical dictatorship that emerged from the Islamic Revolution of 1979. Since the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the painful insurgency that followed, Americans have associated regime change with long-term military intervention. But history shows there is more than one way to change a repressive regime.

In the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan pursued a clear and consistent policy of support for Polish organizations opposed to the Soviet-backed military junta in Warsaw. This effort entailed activities ranging from Radio Free Europe broadcasts to clandestine support for Solidarity, the independent Polish labor union led by Lech Walesa. Reagan also made ample use of his bully pulpit to challenge Communist rule of Poland and other satellite states in the Soviet bloc. American assistance was certainly not the only factor that contributed to the eventual collapse of the Polish regime, but there is evidence that it helped the anti-Communist movement survive and eventually triumph.

This paper discerns lessons from Reagan’s policy to inform decisions today regarding the clerical regime in Tehran. The imperative to prevent Iran from building a nuclear weapon will complicate any effort to weaken the regime. For national security reasons, dismantling Iran’s nuclear weapons infrastructure must be the priority. Trump took an unprecedented step toward that goal by bombing key nuclear sites, yet the next steps may entail diplomacy that requires a measure of engagement with the regime.

Reagan faced a similar challenge. He sought peace through strength. But he also pursued strategic arms reductions and ultimately wanted to abolish nuclear weapons, which required him to negotiate with the Soviets. Would it be possible to negotiate with Moscow while challenging Communist domination in Poland? Reagan resolved this dilemma by showing that one could both negotiate and challenge the Communists simultaneously. To that end, he sought to negotiate from a position of strength by ratcheting up pressure on Moscow and Warsaw from both without and within. A buildup of American military power and a strategy of checking Soviet external expansion were coupled with prudent support for those struggling for basic human rights behind the Iron Curtain. In time, this strategy would help bring down the Soviet Union and bring freedom to millions, including the people of Poland.

Reagan understood that the nature of the Soviet regime made it inherently dangerous. The same is true of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Chants of “Death to America” and “Death to Israel” are not for show. They express the regime’s ideological commitment to exporting revolutionary violence across the Middle East and beyond. To paraphrase Leon Trotsky’s famous line about war, “You may not be interested in the regime, but the regime is interested in you.”

In 1981, Reagan described the emergence of the Solidarity movement as a “watershed moment in the history of mankind — a challenge to tyranny from within.” We are witnessing another watershed moment in Iran today. “The Islamic Republic resembles a late-stage Soviet Union,” Iran analyst Karim Sadjadpour wrote, “economically and ideologically bankrupt and reliant on repression for its survival.” Tehran has also suffered humiliating military setbacks and faces a looming succession crisis with Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei now 86 years old. American action can take advantage of these favorable trends. The existence of the Islamic Republic “runs against the tide of history by denying human freedom and human dignity to its citizens,” just as Reagan said of the Soviet Union and its Communist satellites in his famous address to the British Parliament in 1982.

Charlie Laderman is an adjunct fellow at FDD. Nazee Moinian is an associate fellow at the Middle East Institute in Washington, DC. For more analysis from FDD please subscribe HERE. Follow FDD on X @FDD. FDD is a Washington, DC-based, nonpartisan research institute focusing on foreign policy and national security.