War, diplomacy and economic sanctions are three cornerstones of strategy that have, in the past, successfully coerced rogue regimes to capitulate. However, it may be time to look beyond these persuasion techniques and develop a new method that can lead to regime change. During the 20th Century, there have been several nations that have successfully transitioned from authoritarian rule to democracy. The transitions were hastened by nonviolent civil disobedience. Although nonviolent civil disobedience is a common form of political action throughout the world, many political observers do not understand its nature and often underestimate its effect. Nonviolence is built on three key components that are found in most non-violent campaigns. By examining case studies it was possible to identify each component and its importance in a nonviolent civil disobedience campaign. The key components are mobilization, strategy, and ethics. South Africa's nonviolence campaign demonstrated the power individual groups possess when they come together as one against a regime. South Africa's minority population was successfully mobilized and the ANC used protests, strikes and boycotts to undermine the economy. When the economy collapsed, so did the regime that had profited from the corrupt handling of economic affairs. South African protesters were also able to draw worldwide support when they convinced other nations that apartheid was immoral. The successful overthrow of Ferdinand Marcos can be attributed to the same components of nonviolent civil disobedience. Like South Africa, several individual groups came together to protest the Marcos regime when Marcos declared martial law to avoid defeat in a democratic election. Philippine protestors used boycotts and strikes to tear apart the economy. When the military realized that Marcos no longer had control of the population, the Chief of Staff disavowed the regime. Once the military capitulated, Marcos' power disintegrated. In each case popular opposition was mobilized based on an ethical appeal to concepts of justice. The strategy in each case involved obstructing the economy which in turn undermined the regime and support for the regime. By comparing these case studies to the conditions in Iran, and Iran's 1979 Revolution it was possible to assess whether non-violent civil disobedience can be organized in Iran with some likelihood of successfully replacing the regime. The 1979 Iranian Revolution contained many of the aspects of non-violent regime change. Iran presently has many of the same disaffected groups who might again be mobilized. Those groups possess the resources and could build the infrastructure to support a non-violent revolution. Lastly, the regime's centralization of the economy has led to economic grievances that cannot be addressed by the present regime. The regime's use of Islamic law to limit participation and stifle dissent means the grievances extend from the economic system to undermine the government's moral authority. The international community has judged the human rights conditions in Iran and has harshly criticized the government. Hence, non-violent action has the prospects of generating international support for those Iranians who would use non-violent civil disobedience to overthrow the regime. Nevertheless, the presence of these conditions alone cannot produce a revolution. The difficulty in a repressive regime is finding a group or leader who can mobilize the population. The ethical component involves exploiting Islam's emphasis on social justice and the unequal distribution of wealth to criticize and ultimately undermine the regime.

Approved for public release; Distribution is unlimited. The opinions and conclusions expressed herein are those of the student-authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College or any other governmental agency. (References to these studies should include the foregoing statement.)