[risk]

Instead, we can support a regime change in Iran.

Is this Ledeen talking? I'm no expert, but I think this is naive in a couple of ways:

1. Just as with Japan which saw our naval blockade after the Tripartite agreement as declaration of open warfare, Iran will see any effort on America's part to trigger regime change as a direct attack.
2. Iranians are already united against us to some extent. It would be an exaggeration to say that they all love us. Some do. Most think Israel is evil. We still have to defend ourselves. That is a lesson we must learn soon or more troops will die "spreading the gospel of freedom" before anyone is listening.
3. Iran's nukes might be coming online sooner than we think. We can't wait any longer to see what will happen next.

We can't save the world. We can't save every innocent person in Iran. We have to save ourselves.

We can try regime change, but despite the comment that Iran may act preemptively against US forces and/or the Iranian people might be driven into the hands of the mullahs, keep in mind we're talking about a Nazi Germany here. The leaders lead the people. At some point, the people are a side issue that will have to be managed after we finish dealing with the threat.

[DoctorZIn]

I am not saying that military action should be off the table, just that it far less desirable option.

We need Iran to become an ally not a country that we occupy, if at all possible.

I am convinced that a popular revolt is still possible but we need to move soon, clearly, and aggressively.