I am skeptical that the United States will actually do anything directly in Iran. If it does, it’s going to be limited to using some bombers to drop heavy ordnance on an underground nuclear reactor.

Some people are getting very enthusiastic about the prospect of regime change in Iran, but I think it’s a long shot and (despite claims otherwise from the Left and the Right), Israel isn’t really trying for it (despite Netanyahu’s speeches) and doesn’t really have the capabilities for it. Israel would be happy if the Jihadist regime fell, but it’s focused on taking out nukes, ballistic missiles and terrorist elements.

We’re also unlikely to go down that road. This is not a nation-building administration.

Still some people are choosing to sell a misleading narrative. So let’s break down a few things.

Regime change is not necesarily the same thing as nation-building. Post WWII we tend to tie the two together, but it’s not necesarily the case. For example, we maintained sufficient pressure on the USSR for the regime to implode. Regime change happened, but we didn’t then determine the outcome. We made it very clear that we wanted regme change in the USSR and across the ex-Soviet republics. But we didn’t do much in the way of nation-building.

Our failed efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan were very much nation building. And they were disastrous for that reason.

It is possible to topple a government, directly or indirectly, without nation building. It goes without saying that we should not pursue nation building in Iran or any other Muslim country.

Would regime change really be a good idea in Iran considering our past experiences? Wouldn’t we risk unleashing worse problems?

In the Middle East, things can generally always get worse, but it’s hard to see what can really be any worse than an Islamic terrorist state with nukes that intends to pass them on to other terrorist groups. Especially if that regime’s motto is “Death to America”.

I have trouble coming up with any scenarios worse than the current one.