[flagged]
And? The statement was pretty clear they think current Iranian regime should go but no indication of what comes behind it which is ultimate question. Their status as Iranian does not get them off the hook of answering "Regime change, how and what will next regime look like?"
I am asking Iranians what’s next. It’s always the most important question. There will be some other guys with weapons taking over. Or should we expect peaceful elections coming like it was in Germany after defeating Nazis? But wait, Germany was conquered and divided by Allies to make it happen.
They were explaining US politics, not Middle East politics. Whether or not you see a first-world project to liberate Iran as legitimate, fundamentally the Trump government is too mercurial to see it through.
While the Bush-era invasion of Iraq was indefensible (if it was defensible they wouldn't have needed to push the WMD lie to justify it) and their initial projections were as ridiculously optimistic as the Trump government's, the Bush crew were clearly ideologically committed to the project and willing to see it through to the end.
Trump's people are not. This is "move fast and break things" and "strong opinions weakly held" in geopolitical form.
What are the US politic for regime changing another Middle Eastern country, one that's bigger than Iraq? Is there a coherent US plan for this war? I have yet to hear one.