[noiseman]

The only long-term solution to Iran’s aggression is regime change. However, even if there is a complete overhaul of Iran’s government, it is clear that Russia and China will just try to meddle and undermine the new government.

If the mullahs are allowed to survive, Russia/China will just resupply and rebuild their terror empire, and if the mullahs are replaced by a democratic government, Russia/China will do everything possible to undermine it. So obviously the real problem is Russia and/or China. There will be a day sooner or later when we will have no choice but to confront them directly. Russia’s reckless talk about supplying the mullahs with complete nuclear warheads proves that, and we all know how evil the CCP is.

Nevertheless, trying to remove the mullahs and let the Iranian people replace them with a secular government is the only logical path. We just need to remember that if we think we can just come home and detach from all of this we’re delusional. Nuclear-armed evil, whether from a determined Islamic Iran or from near-peers Russia or China directly, isn’t interested in letting us live quietly and safely. If we try to withdraw from the world, it is obvious that the Islamic crazies will try to hit us, whether with their own home-grown weapons or directly supplied by others, and if we instead try to actively prevent this we run the very real risk of direct nuclear conflict with the two near-peers. Either way, we are going to have to deal with this rather than stick our heads back in the sand.

[Phoenix8]

That fool Carter could have prevented this by killing one dirty robed, wild eyed cleric. Now many will have to die to achieve the same result.

[frog in a pot]

The only long-term solution to Iran’s aggression is regime change.

Quite correct. Regime change is a direct product of "unconditional surrender," which should be the goal of any U.S. military usage and loss of life.

However, the anti-Western forces abhor any regime change they do not inspire; their agenda requires the preexisting chaos. For at least the past 75 years, it has accused, discredited, and shamed the U.S. for regime change and placed it on a par with being the "policemen of the world".

Indeed, it has done so with success. See, for instance, SoS Rubio's weekend news conference when he went to great lengths to expressly deny the U.S was regime changing.

If the circumstances in Iran warranted significant destruction by the U.S. with the attendant loss of life, why does it not warrant a regime change facilitated by the U.S.?