“Regime Change” does not necessarily mean an upgrade. If that was the goal, then an occupation would have had to been contemplated. I do not see that being good for the region or for the U.S. interests, not to mention the unavoidable casualties of those who happen to live in Iran. The political will is not there even if it were a good idea, which it is not.
The biggest losers will be the opec gulf states. They are going bust. I believe this was frumps plan all along, destroy Iran and opec. He gets a 2fer.
“Regime change” meant deposing the mullahs and the sixty thousand or so who control the oil industry, the bazaars, the banks, the IRGC, the food supply, the diplomats and the military. These are the brutal people that have killed, maimed and imprisoned tens of thousands to maintain power. After two weeks of directed bombing, this barbaric regime was tottering. The Iranian Kurds were willing and able, with direct Israeli support to spearhead a definitive assault. The repressed protestors would have cooperated. The Kurds were restrained when Turkey feared they would create a Kurdistan out a Western Iran.
If you ever speak with educated Iranian ex pats in the US, most supported the “revolution”. They viewed the revolution as a way to rid themselves of the shah who they viewed as the illegitimate and corrupt ruler who was empowered by the American intervention in Iranian politics at the peak of the cold war. The expected a secular, somewhat leftist regime. None ever imagined that Iran would become a repressive theocracy. The ex pats never admit it but they know however imperfect was the shah, Iran would have been far better off had the “revolution” had not occurred and if things had evolved peacefully.
IMHO the week following the intensive bombing and the killing of the murderous Ayatollah was a lost historic opportunity to bring an end to the mullah nightmare.