In Iran, regime change is the only goal that ever made sense

The only way a U.S. attack on Iran ever made sense was is if its goal was regime change.

If the intention is, for example, to compel Iran to do a “deal” then there was no point in attacking. Under the current circumstances, no deal is worth the cost of lifting sanctions that would give an untrustworthy and demonic regime more runway with which to oppress its people and bamboozle the world.

When Iranian protesters bravely took to the streets in January, that was their goal — not an improved nuclear deal with the West. President Trump promised them that “help is on its way” but then watched a brutal crackdown that is believed to have killed many thousands

In general, a government’s evil nature does not by itself grant outside powers the right to attack it. Otherwise, geopolitics would be a permanent contest of intervention, with every government claiming license to overthrow all other governments.

There is a point, however, where the evil is too great. This is an international norm known as “the Responsibility to Protect.” It is still a problematic reason to start a war, especially since it is applied so inconsistently. The West did not attack Pol Pot, for example, and today it is not threatening North Korea.

An easier case to make is when a government has been harming other countries. That makes the case against Iran’s Islamic Republic easier to justify. Iran has for decades been funding, arming, and training proxy militias across the region that have caused stupendous harm to a swath of Middle East countries. 

Hezbollah has undermined Lebanon and caused ruinous wars with Israel; it propped up the murderous Assad regime in Syria until its collapse. Iran’s Shiite militias in Iraq have made a mockery of that country’s independence. The Houthis in Yemen have taken over half the country, impeded global trade in the Suez canal, and caused........

© The Hill