Dont fall for regime change myths US power is a force for good

MAGA celebrity Charlie Kirk, attempting to balance support for the administration and appeal to online isolationists, maintains that the “regime change war machine in DC” is pushing President Donald Trump into “an all-out blitz on Iran.” He’s not alone.The question is, what does “regime change war” mean in simple language?Does it mean, as “non-interventionists” suggest, invading Iran and imposing American democracy on its people?Because, if so, there’s virtually no one pushing for that.And I only add “virtually” in case I somehow missed a person of consequence, though it is highly unlikely.Trump, from all indications, is using the threat of the US joining the war to push Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei into surrender.Though taking out Iran’s nuclear program would end the war quicker.Or does opposing “regime change” mean actively thwarting the Iranian opposition from overthrowing the fundamentalists who took power via a violent revolution in 1979?Does it mean ensuring that Khamenei survives, because a resulting messy post-war fight for power is worse?It seems the latter.

Kirk says, “There is a vast difference between a popular revolution and foreign-imposed, abrupt, violent regime change.”Surely, he doesn’t believe the mullahs will gradually propose liberal reforms for the people and become peaceful neighbors on their own?If Iranians revolt, it’s because of the violence now being imposed on the regime.The ideological overcorrection due to the failures of Iraq’s rebuild now has non-interventionists accusing anyone who proposes that it’s better if anti-American dictatorships fall of being “neocons,” perhaps the most useless phrase in our political lexicon.Forget for a moment that Iran has been an enemy of the United States for 45 years.Not an existential threat, no, but a deadly one, nonetheless.The non-interventionist is not bothered by the Islamic Republic’s murder of American citizens, or its crusade fo...