When Intervention Is Moral

If it ever is

On February 28th, Khamenei was killed.

He was a villain. But that does not mean his death was a good thing. Even killing a bad man can be for the worse.

Leaders can be deeply evil, but their successors may be even more so.

The Ayatollah was a tyrant.

Although he oppressed his people, removing him caused instability. Instability always implies risk. People might suffer as a consequence.

Hence, even removing the worst leaders requires careful planning.

It must be ensured that the situation does not worsen.

Removal without a plan risks further harm. The interventionist, even if well-intended, must take this into account. Whatever follows, he is responsible.

To intervene justly, he must remediate whatever instability follows the intervention. Otherwise, he contributes to the chaos he should be alleviating.

Consequences should be considered.

But eligibility is equally important.

It must be assessed when a regime is eligible for removal.

Because all governments harm well-being to a degree, harm alone is insufficient. That only takes one corrupt official, and there always is one. The question is whether harm is a feature or a bug.

To a truly tyrannical regime, oppression is central policy.

Authoritarians instrumentalize harm to maintain power. You do what they say, or else. It is embedded in their rule and coordinated top-down.

To assess whether a regime may be changed morally, this could be a determining factor.

Both conditions must be met, however.

Pragmatism is as important as morality. Therefore, the eligibility for removal and the ability to stabilize the country are required. They bear equal weight.

The plan must be bulletproof: from start to finish.