Not really. We absolutely have the option to let things play out in Iran and refuse to intervene. There are many regimes in Africa that are as bad or worse than Iran. We seem to have little interest in "regime change" there. You should think about why not.
Wytwwww|8 days ago
Africa is tricky due to historical reasons, though. Any western power that would intervene there without the explicit invitation of the local government would be accused of neo-colonialism etc.
don_esteban|8 days ago
Do you really believe that after the violent regime change Iran will become the beacon of prosperity in the ME?
Yes, I believe if the things are really out of hands (like Khmer rouge in Kambodia), external intervention is warranted.
That can be done against small/weak states where the result can be achieved fast and without too much bloodshed (compared to what is already going on), and when agreed on by UN. Will most definitely need boots on the ground.
It is an entirely different matter against a 90million vast state like Iran. Note that boots on the ground is not in the cards, and most probably will never be. The approach is 'bomb and hope'. Which guarantees misery and bloodshed of Iranian blood. And if the result is fall of the ayatollah regime, and replaced by nationalists with socialistic tendencies, that would not really cooperate with USA (= sell oil rights and totally dismantle their military) then what? Bomb more? How can you honestly believe this is the best for Iranian people?
mupuff1234|8 days ago
And all while making "death to america" part of their national slogan.
hunterpayne|8 days ago
mikkupikku|8 days ago
philwelch|8 days ago
mikkupikku|8 days ago