I think there’s a lot of assumption in this. When you say "you wanted war," "you wanted a continuous war," "you don't care about Iranians," or "you want to install another dictator," who exactly is "you"? The U.S. isn't a single person with a single motive. There are Republicans, Democrats, military leaders, diplomats, intelligence agencies, allies, critics and millions of citizens with very different views. You're taking a very complex set of decisions and assigning one motive to an entire country. On the Artesh/IRGC point, the IRGC has clearly not been left alone. Senior IRGC commanders have been killed, missile infrastructure has been targeted and IRGC-linked command-and-control capabilities have been hit. So I don't think the claim that the IRGC was somehow protected or strengthened is supported by the evidence. As for "just empower the opposition," that sounds straightforward until you start asking practical questions. Which opposition? Who leads it? How much support do they actually have? What happens if the regime falls? History is full of examples where the easy answer turned out not to be so easy. I'm happy to debate whether the strategy was right or wrong. What I'm less convinced by is the habit of assigning motives to entire countries and then treating those assumptions as established facts.
Create an account or sign in to comment