Trump Failing in Regime Change War Against Iranian Nation State

Three weeks into Trump’s regime change war. Is the world really safer?

March 17, 2026

What have we witnessed in the preemptive war against Iran being waged by Israel and the United States? That powerful armies can destroy weaker nations with overwhelming military force. However, it is much harder to recreate a new viable nation that is capable of  providing for its people. Look closely at the last two colossal failures of regime change wars in this century; Iraq, and Libya. Both are and have been failed states for decades. President Trump’s war on Iran has entered its third week. Despite the macho boasting of President Trump and his followers, what has really changed for the better? Yes, Iran’s infrastructure and military capability is being dismantled. Has the regime changed? Is the nation any better off? Is the world any safer?

U.S. military-intelligence reports that the regime in Iran maintains control of the country and is more emboldened to resist U.S. and Israeli bombings of their nation. Does President Trump wish the alternative? That the nation of Iran disintegrates, and becomes another failed state, a balkanized territory of warring religions, ethnicities, and non-Iranian nationalities? Are the U.S. and the world really better off with a destabilization of the Middle East and the Gulf?

Read below, President Franklin Roosevelt’s superior approach to nation building.

The article below is reprinted from americansystemnow.com.* Read my earlier post on President Trump’s war on Iran: Trump Adopts Neocon Regime Change: Was His MAGA A Hoax?

How FDR Planned to Outflank the British in Iran and Afghanistan

By Edward Spannaus,  March 13, 2026

Surprising as it may seem today, at the end of the Second World War, both Afghanistan and Iran looked to the United States as their hope for economic development, and for protection from the imperialist designs of Great Britain and the Soviet Union. Both Afghanistan and Iran had long been pawns in the “Great Game” between Britain and Russia, and both saw in the principles of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Atlantic Charter, the possibility of fulfilling their aspirations for freedom from foreign domination and exploitation.

The transformation of the image of the United States, from the protector of exploited nations, to the “Great Satan” and sworn enemy of pan-Islamic fanatics, is a case study in British methods of manipulation and control.

The favorable image of the United States held in the eyes of the leaders of both Iran and Afghanistan was largely due to the deployment of President Roosevelt’s personal representative, Gen. Patrick J. Hurley, to that region in 1943-44. When Hurley arrived in Iran in 1943, he found a country occupied jointly by the British and the Soviets, a country which feared it would be permanently partitioned by the two occupying powers after the war. Hurley proposed that Iran protect its future by joining the Allies and declaring war on Germany and the Axis powers—a proposal which was violently opposed by the British and Russian allies!

At FDR’s instruction, and over efforts by the Anglophilic U.S. State Department to sabotage his efforts, Hurley drafted the “Declaration Regarding Iran” during the Teheran Conference in late 1943. The declaration guaranteed the independence, sovereignty, and territorial integrity of Iran, and promised assistance in dealing with the postwar economic situation. Over Averell Harriman’s objections, Roosevelt managed to get the document signed by Stalin and Churchill.

Roosevelt’s vision was to make Iran a “pilot project,” which would show the world the benefits of applying American “twentieth-century” methods to the task of global development. He assigned Hurley to develop a plan for the postwar economic development of Iran, which involved freeing Iran from internal and foreign exploitation, so that it could use its considerable natural resources for its own benefit. FDR also asked Hurley to compile a list of American industrialists and experts who could be trusted to carry out the project. Hurley’s report to Roosevelt included the following provisions:

“Inauguration in Iran of the American pattern of self-government and free enterprise will be an assurance that [the] proceeds from development of Iranian resources will be directed substantially to the building of schools, hospitals, sanitary systems, irrigation systems, and improvement of all facilities contributing to the health, happiness and general welfare of the Iranian people.

“This plan of nation building may be improved through our experience in Iran and may become the criterion for the relations of the United States toward all nations which are now suffering from the evils of greedy minorities, monopolies, aggression, and imperialism.”

President Roosevelt was enthusiastic about the Iran Plan, and forwarded it to the State Department, commenting: “I was rather thrilled by the idea of using Iran as an example of what we could do by an unselfish American policy.”

General Patrick Hurley (center) was a trusted emissary for FDR during World War II, travelling to the Soviet Union, Teheran, and Afghanistan. In 1944, President Roosevelt appointed him Ambassador to China. Here he is meeting with Mao Tze Tung. (Photo: Wikipedia)

Intervention in Afghanistan

Afghanistan was Hurley’s next stop. He flew to Peshawar in Pakistan, only 150 miles from the capital of Afghanistan. As Hurley’s biographer Don Lohbeck tells the story:

“In Peshawar, a series of British-inspired obstacles arose to hinder completion of the flight to Kabul. First the plane in which he was to fly over the mountains to the Afghan capital was declared to be of a type that could not possibly land on the Kabul air strip; second, the officials of the British airfield ‘lost’ the key to the gasoline pump and could not furnish gas for the flight; third, local weather reports from Kabul were withheld from the Americans so that when on January 4, they finally took off—they had to turn back when within only twenty miles of the Afghan city, because weather conditions were so bad they could not land. Trying again the next day, the Americans had to turn back because of engine trouble that developed while in flight.

“Finally, in disgust, General Hurley and his party left Peshawar by car, driving through the Khyber Pass.”

Hurley’s trip was a marked success. The U.S. military attaché wrote that Afghanistan, which had been left out of the Teheran Conference, was eager for some notice from the United States, and that the Afghan leaders now looked to Washington as the arbiter of their relations with Britain and Russia.

Hurley himself reported to Roosevelt that “since leaving Afghanistan I have confirmed the impression that neither Russia nor Britain has the confidence of the Afghanistan Government…. The fact that the United States Government has no imperialistic designs may be regarded as the chief reason why it is trusted by Afghanistan and all nations of the Middle East. The king of Afghanistan is also familiar with the principles expressed by you. He expressed himself as in complete accord and anxious to follow your leadership. The king was delighted by the Iran Declaration. He said it gave all nations of the Middle East and Central Asia confidence in their own future. Throughout the Middle East you are credited with having obtained the Iran Declaration from Britain and Russia.”

The FDR-Hurley plan for Iran was violently attacked by the State Department, whose “expert” on Iran, Eugene Rostow, dismissed it as “hysterical messianic global-baloney.” Hurley angrily denounced the opponents of the plan as “stuffed-shirt diplomats in the State Department who were kow-towing to the British.”

But with Roosevelt’s death in 1945, and the accession of Harry Truman to the White House, the British agents-of-influence in the State Department had their way, and Roosevelt’s postwar plans for the Middle East and Central Asia were scuttled.

American aid for Afghanistan, which was looking to the United States for investment and assistance, never materialized. The United States did manage to maintain more of a role in Iran, and in the early 1950s even assisted Iran’s efforts to wrest control of its oil from Britain. Contrary to historical myth, the United States supported the Mossadeq government’s nationalization of Iran’s oil resources. But with the advent of the Eisenhower administration, U.S. policy in Iran was quickly aligned with that of Britain, and U.S. agents played a secondary, supporting role in the British-run coup against Mossadeq. It was only later that the CIA took credit for overthrowing Mossadeq—a stupid and false claim, which contributed greatly to British efforts to transform the United States into the “enemy image” in the Middle East.

*First published in Executive Intelligence Review, Oct. 13, 1995.

Read my earlier post: Trump Adopts Neocon Regime Change: Was His MAGA A Hoax?

Lawrence Freeman is a Political-Economic Analyst for Africa, who has been involved in economic development policies for Africa for over 35 years. He is a teacher, writer, public speaker, consultant on Africa, and an analyst of global strategic relations. Mr. Freeman strongly believes that economic development is an essential human right. He is the creator of the blog: lawrencefreemanafricaandtheworld.comalso publishes on: lawrencefreeman.substack.com, “Freeman’s Africa and the Worldand on X @lkfreemansafrica

Promoting Economic Growth and Tranquility Should Replace Foreign Interventionism. The Case of Ethiopia 

Last U.S. soldier to leave Afghanistan

Promoting Economic Growth and Tranquility Should Replace Foreign Interventionism. The Case of Ethiopia 

Lawrence Freeman

September 2, 2021

As the United States was in the final days of evacuation from its twenty year old failed invasion of Afghanistan, the Washington Post called on President Joe Biden to impose more harsh penalties on the nation of Ethiopia. There are insights we can glean from the juxtaposition of these two events.

On August 27, the Washington Post editorial board called on President Joe Biden to issue additional sanctions against Ethiopia. The Post asserted that the government of Ethiopia is responsible for atrocities including civilian massacres, using rape as a weapon, and “causing the world’s worst hunger crisis in a decade.” No proof was provided other than reports from Amnesty International and comments by Samantha Power, Chief of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). Readers of the Post editorial are expected to have accepted all the allegations by the media against Ethiopia over the last ten months as true and factual. However, a leaked video conversation by United Nations representatives in August, revealed an admission of no real evidence-data-to support the media’s unsubstantiated claim that Ethiopia used rape as a weapon of war.  Also, recent reports from USAID officials, indicate that the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) have been stealing food intended to feed Ethiopians.  

The editorial continued, “If Eritrean officials deserve sanctions, the U.S. government must consider them for Ethiopian government officials, too.Conspicuously, while the Post asserts the alleged crimes of Ethiopia as genuine, they merely allude to “accusations” of atrocities by the TPLF. 

President Biden defends ending war in Afghanistan (courtesy of hindustaintimes.com)

Failed Foreign Interventions

Is President Biden foolish enough to allow Secretary of State Antony Blinken, Samantha Power, and others in his administration to lead the U.S. into another foreign disaster, after twenty years of failed interventions? This remains to be seen.

History often provides us with a real time juxtaposition of events that exposes an underlying reality, that might otherwise go unexamined by those who are habituated to regurgitating media induced popular opinion.

A week before the Washington Post publicly joined the liberal establishment’s campaign to weaken the government of Prime Minister, Abiy Ahmed,in favor of separatist forces, Tony Blair defended the British-U.S. disastrous Afghanistan policy. Remember, Blair was British Prime Minister and Labor Party leader from 1997-2007.

In his wordy defense for geo-political motivated interventions, Blair castigated President Biden for pulling U.S. troops out of Afghanistan. Blair arrogantly insisted that it is the responsibility of the West to military intervene around the world in the guise of promoting so called democratic values. He wrote on August 21, “If the West wants to shape the 21st century, it will take commitment…we in the West represent values and interests worth being proud of defending.”

Blair attempts to justify a generation of Western intervention that has produced nothing but death, destruction, and suffering around the world.

Abetted by Blair, President George W Bush launched the invasion into Afghanistan, under the pretext of chasing down the terrorists responsible for the “9/11” bombings in the U.S. Except that the  majority of those responsible were citizens of Saudi Arabia, the geo-political ally of the U.S. in the Gulf region. Less than two years later, the U.S. invaded Iraq, led by Blair’s lies, searching for the non-existent weapons of mass destruction. How many millions of men, women and children have lost their lives or suffered horrible conditions because of the ill-fated Western adventure to destroy Iraq, a then relatively stable nation in the region.

Former President Obama’s overthrow and elimination of President Muammar Gaddafi almost ten years ago, purportedly to protect the Libyan people, has led to untold suffering of millions of Africans across the Sahel. This reckless intervention by liberal Democrat Obama, transformed the nation of Libya into a failed state, and has led to an expansion of violent extremist movements throughout the nations of the Sahel; still ongoing today. Obama’s support for “regime change” against Syrian President, Bashar al-Assad, has done nothing but create more devastation in the Middle East. 

Now asked yourself; how many nations dedicated to the principles of American republicanism were nurtured into existence during this generation of U.S. and Western intervention?

Tony Blair and George Soros, leading liberal architects for regime change (courtesy of pagesix.com)

Blair and Soros Promulgate “R2P”

Blair, who chastises President Biden’s withdraw from Afghanistan,  epitomizes the “liberal Imperialist.” Under the guise of promoting democracy and so called western values around the world, Blair advocates “regime change” with complete disregard for national sovereignty.

In a 1999 Chicago presentation, Blair publicly advocated his infamous doctrine “responsibility to protect-R2P,” which became the core of  British and American foreign policy for the next twenty years.

In 2012, I wrote:

“… the ‘responsibility to protect’ doctrine advocates discarding over three centuries of the lawful recognition of the supremacy of the sovereign nation state, established by the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia, which ended over a century and a half of religious warfare in Europe. Blair’s anti-nation state doctrine insists that the so-called international community has the right to use its more powerful militaries to eliminate governments under the amorphous notion of quote ‘humanitarian intervention.’”

Liberal Democrat George Soros creator of the Open Society, and super funder of liberal causes, supported and expanded Blair‘s new “R2P” doctrine. In his 2004 article in Foreign Policy Magazine, Soros wrote: 

“Sovereignty is anachronistic conception originating in bygone times… it became the cornerstone of international relations with the treaty Westphalia in 1648…The rulers of a sovereign state have responsibility to protect the state’s citizens. When they failed to do so the responsibility is transferred to the international community.”(emphasis added)

Who comprises this supercilious “international community” that decides to disregard the sovereignty of nations, and from whence did they acquire this entitlement?

Will Biden End Foreign Interventions?

President Biden’s August 31, address to the people of the United States, could portend the end of U.S. policy of mis-adventurism around the world, when he said: “This decision about Afghanistan is not just about Afghanistan. It’s about ending an era of major military operations to remake other countries.” If so, Biden’s presidency will be a turning point in modern history. This moment provides President Biden with a unique opportunity to define a fresh foreign policy approach.

Second filling of GERD that will generate electricity-economic growth for Africa (courtesy of burkena.com)

Let President Biden demonstrate his commitment to this new outlook by reversing his administration’s involvement in undermining the elected government of Ethiopia. The U.S. should be supporting and strengthening PM Abiy in his efforts to secure the nation-state of Ethiopia against separatist-rebels trying to dismember the nation.  Sanctions will not help Ethiopia. It is not in America’s interest to have a weakened Ethiopia. Sanctions are not an effective method of conducting relations with a sovereign nation that has provided stability in the region and been an ally to the U.S. There is no justification for the U.S. to turn against Ethiopia, its erstwhile partner in the Horn of Africa.

Sanctions should be repealed immediately. This will require President Biden curtailing his Secretary of State, Antony Blinken’s proclivities for interventionism and Samantha Power, a longtime supporter of “R2P” and George Soros.   

A new foreign strategy should not be predicated on intruding militarily  or applying political coercion to other nations under the pretext of imposing so called western democracy. Rather we should emulate one of our great U.S. presidents, John Quincy Adams, who said in his 1821 Fourth of July speech, “America goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.”

Instead of weakening nations through sanctions and the withholding funds for development, the U.S. should export republicanism. The U.S. was founded as republic with a government constitutionally mandated to provide for the “general welfare” of its citizens. All great U.S. presidents, regardless of party, understood that fostering economic growth, propelled by advancements in science and technology, was the proper means to ensure prosperity and tranquility.

Ethiopia, although still an emerging nation, has distinguished itself by launching bold initiatives to drive economic development, particularly in the area of infrastructure. Let the basis for a renewed alliance and friendship between Ethiopia and the U.S., be grounded on policies that promote economic progress for Ethiopia’s 110 million citizens.    

Lawrence Freeman is a Political-Economic Analyst for Africa, who has been involved in economic development policies for Africa for over 30 years. He is the creator of the blog: lawrencefreemanafricaandtheworld.com. Mr. Freeman’s stated personal mission is; to eliminate poverty and hunger in Africa by applying the scientific economic principles of Alexander Hamilton