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.?
“ Regime change is a direct product of “unconditional surrender,” which should be the goal of any U.S. military usage and loss of life.‘
Exactly the opposite of reality…at least that is what history has shown.
In WW2 the Germans and Japanese would have surrendered conditionally much earlier.
Japan for example put out peace feelers to Sweden (smart) and the USSR (dumb). Just with a guarantee of the sanctity of the Emperor they would likely have resulted in VJ in June ‘45. That would mean no A-Bombs dropped. No USSR invasion of Manchuria and thus possibly completely changing the future of Asia (The Soviets took all nearly all the considerable cache of weapons the Japnese surrendered in Manchuria and gave it to Mao and his blood thirsty hordes of commies who then won the Chinese civil war).
Germany is more uncertain with possible surrender in mid ‘44.
As about 6 million people died in 1945 even a relatively marginal earlier peace could have saved millions.