Why was the target not regime change in Iran?

[Votto]

As we all saw, Iran was targeted militarily to remove possible WMD's, but why not seek regime change by targeting those in power?

At best, they just bought time is all as Iran will continue to pursue their WMD quest, now more than ever.

Who here speculates as to why they did not seek regime change with their attacks?

What if political leaders targeted themselves for a change instead of having their lemming followers kill each other?

Or is that why they don't do it, so that even if they lose a war they remain safe? Is there just an unwritten international agreement between political foes to not try and target each other?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

As we all saw, Iran was targeted militarily to remove possible WMD's, but why not seek regime change by targeting those in power?

At best, they just bought time is all as Iran will continue to pursue their WMD quest, now more than ever.

Who here speculates as to why they did not seek regime change with their attacks?

Pray for America

Pray for the World

Trump can be a dick on DEI, on tariffs, on the fake news; he's needs his A game here

 

[Seymour Flops]

As we all saw, Iran was targeted militarily to remove possible WMD's, but why not seek regime change by targeting those in power?

At best, they just bought time is all as Iran will continue to pursue their WMD quest, now more than ever.

Who here speculates as to why they did not seek regime change with their attacks?

What if political leaders targeted themselves for a change instead of having their lemming followers kill each other?

Or is that why they don't do it, so that even if they lose a war they remain safe? Is there just an unwritten international agreement between political foes to not try and target each other?

Changing the regime could be done. I don't know that forcing the people of Iran to accept that regime is possible.

Iranians who wanted Iran to be a modern secular state were killed quickly during the aftermath of the fall of the Shah. I'm sure there are many now who would like to see Iran join the 21st century, but I don't know if they are organized.

I cannot get behind yet another CIA-led installation of a leader of the intelligence community's choosing.

 

[luiza]

As we all saw, Iran was targeted militarily to remove possible WMD's, but why not seek regime change by targeting those in power?

At best, they just bought time is all as Iran will continue to pursue their WMD quest, now more than ever.

Who here speculates as to why they did not seek regime change with their attacks?

What if political leaders targeted themselves for a change instead of having their lemming followers kill each other?

Or is that why they don't do it, so that even if they lose a war they remain safe? Is there just an unwritten international agreement between political foes to not try and target each other?

Ha Ha

Just some Saturday night scripted Theatre for the Sheeple .
There was nothing to bomb at Fordnow but it distracts from the huge damage Israel suffered from missile attacks .

Has Tel Aviv been destroyed ?
We can but hope .

 

[Votto]

Changing the regime could be done. I don't know that forcing the people of Iran to accept that regime is possible.

Force them to do what exactly?

What I'm saying is target those in power that you cannot tolerate.

And you keep doing it till they learn to behave and be nice, or they do the same to you.

It would be far better than building WMD's to basically destroy the entire planet, along with the billions of people that live on earth.


But I digress.

At least the US goes after military targets rather than civilian ones like Muslims seem to prefer to do.

 

[Rawley]

Who here speculates as to why they did not seek regime change with their attacks?

"You break it, you buy it."

 

[kyzr]

Changing the regime could be done. I don't know that forcing the people of Iran to accept that regime is possible.

If you believe Bolton, the people of Iran are ready for regime change.

Regime change and nation-building never work as planned. See Iraq and AFG and Libya and Syria...

 

[Woodznutz]

Baby steps.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Force them to do what exactly?

Accept a U.S. chosen regime.

What I'm saying is target those in power that you cannot tolerate.

And you keep doing it till they learn to behave and be nice, or they do the same to you.

I would not call that regime change, but more regime elimination, under the assumption that whatever government follows will be better, or they can just be eliminated also.

Not saying that would not work, but I would wonder how many iterations of an Iranian regime it would take to find on we would accept.

It would be far better than building WMD's to basically destroy the entire planet, along with the billions of people that live on earth.

Agreed.

But I digress.

At least the US goes after military targets rather than civilian ones like Muslims seem to prefer to do.

It's a hateful religion.

 

[IDIOCRACY]

As we all saw, Iran was targeted militarily to remove possible WMD's, but why not seek regime change by targeting those in power?

At best, they just bought time is all as Iran will continue to pursue their WMD quest, now more than ever.

Who here speculates as to why they did not seek regime change with their attacks?

What if political leaders targeted themselves for a change instead of having their lemming followers kill each other?

Or is that why they don't do it, so that even if they lose a war they remain safe? Is there just an unwritten international agreement between political foes to not try and target each other?

Just because they claim not to seek it doesn't make it true.

 

[konradv]

As we all saw, Iran was targeted militarily to remove possible WMD's, but why not seek regime change by targeting those in power?

At best, they just bought time is all as Iran will continue to pursue their WMD quest, now more than ever.

Who here speculates as to why they did not seek regime change with their attacks?

What if political leaders targeted themselves for a change instead of having their lemming followers kill each other?

Or is that why they don't do it, so that even if they lose a war they remain safe? Is there just an unwritten international agreement between political foes to not try and target each other?

Remember how well that worked in Iraq and Afghanistan?

 

[Votto]

Remember how well that worked in Iraq and Afghanistan?

The world will never be right so long as idiot human beings continue to govern over other idiot human beings, but at least all the fighting could be done between the idiots in government and leave the rest of us idiots the hell alone.

 

[citygator]

Suddenly the isolationist anti-war party wants war and intervention if their Orange God wants it. My head is spinning from so much flip flopping.

 

[konradv]

The world will never be right so long as idiot human beings continue to govern over other idiot human beings, but at least all the fighting could be done between the idiots in government and leave the rest of us idiots the hell alone.

Should have thought of that last fall!

 

[Billiejeens]

As we all saw, Iran was targeted militarily to remove possible WMD's, but why not seek regime change by targeting those in power?

At best, they just bought time is all as Iran will continue to pursue their WMD quest, now more than ever.

Who here speculates as to why they did not seek regime change with their attacks?

What if political leaders targeted themselves for a change instead of having their lemming followers kill each other?

Or is that why they don't do it, so that even if they lose a war they remain safe? Is there just an unwritten international agreement between political foes to not try and target each other?

Because every time we try that
It's awful?

 

[Seymour Flops]

Should have thought of that last fall!

And made Kamala the president?

Seriously?

 

[konradv]

And made Kamala the president?

She wouldn’t have tanked the economy.

 

[Votto]

I would compare not wanting regime change, but instead targeting taking nukes away from a country, to targeting taking guns away from society instead of targeting individuals who should not have guns like the Left always does.

 

[Doc7505]

Changing the regime could be done. I don't know that forcing the people of Iran to accept that regime is possible.

Iranians who wanted Iran to be a modern secular state were killed quickly during the aftermath of the fall of the Shah. I'm sure there are many now who would like to see Iran join the 21st century, but I don't know if they are organized.

I cannot get behind yet another CIA-led installation of a leader of the intelligence community's choosing.

~~~~~~
Remember?

Neda – the tragic face of Iran's uprising

Joan of Arc she was not, nor the Unknown Protester who stopped the tanks in Tiananmen Square, because that young man, 20 years ago, chose his fate and his prominence, deliberately stepping out of the crowd into the tank's and the cameras' sights.

www.independent.co.uk

xxxxxxxxxx​

Iran: Neda’s killer must be brought to justice

One year after the killing of Neda Agha Soltan, the failure of Iranian authorities to bring her killer to justice is a damning example of the culture of impunity that has widened since the 2009 election protests, says Amnesty International. Neda Agha Soltan, then 27, was shot in central Tehran...

www.amnesty.org

xxxxxxxxxx​

https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2025/05/29/the_iranian_people_want_regime_change-_now_1113129.html

A.I. says:
"The likelihood of a successful regime change in Iran is uncertain, as many Iranians may rally around their government during foreign attacks rather than rise up against it. Despite some opposition voices claiming the regime is weak, historical patterns suggest that external interventions often lead to chaos rather than stability".

 

[Oddball]

As we all saw, Iran was targeted militarily to remove possible WMD's, but why not seek regime change by targeting those in power?

At best, they just bought time is all as Iran will continue to pursue their WMD quest, now more than ever.

Who here speculates as to why they did not seek regime change with their attacks?

What if political leaders targeted themselves for a change instead of having their lemming followers kill each other?

Or is that why they don't do it, so that even if they lose a war they remain safe? Is there just an unwritten international agreement between political foes to not try and target each other?

Name the last first time regime change from without has worked out well.