I respectfully disagree. It has been reported the proxy’s of Iran (Hamas, Hezbollah) have been crippled in their ability to conduct terrorist activities due to the economic sanctions that have been placed on Iran.
It is true the regime has managed to keep the populace under control for now, but remember the Shah had his “secret police” too and he was overthrown. I think we are rapidly approaching the same tipping point with the Mullah’s.
From what I understand, the currency of Iran is pretty close to worthless, the regime is not doing anything to alleviate the suffering of it’s people. The Mullah’s are still living large and while not perfect, there is some Western influence creeping into the country that shows young people there is a better way than strict Sharia law.
Again,if you take away a reason for the people to suffer,(America, the Great Satan) then who becomes the bad guy?
You can only ask the population to suffer for only so long before they rebel. Let’s hope it is sooner rather than later.
To get rid of Saddam, we had to invade. To get rid of Khadafy we had to bomb.
I am not making a case the Libya was something we should have done. Iraq is a bit different. There was a good case for overthrowing Saddam, but we were not willing to commit to the necessary long haul. Problem is you need to decide that before you invade. In the Iraqi case, we could have changed the ME for the better, had we not allowed Iranian influence in the new govt, and then basically pulled out altogether before they could get their stuff in one sack. In Libya, we got rid of a despot and then let country fall apart under its warlords.
So the outcomes were both managed poorly, but in neither case could the oppressed in the regimes rise up on their own.