U.S. officials fear regime change. They dread instability and the unknown. In reality, naysayers are seldom right. Post-World War II Germany and Japan show that regime change can work. The problem in Afghanistan and Iraq was less regime change than misguided nation-building and wishful blindness to Iranian and Pakistani interference. Regardless, today, Iraq is not the failed state many Americans assume; it has a booming economy and youthful energy, even if it has a Wild West-meets-1930s Chicago vibe. The verdict is not yet in on Syria as Ahmad al-Sharaa’s sectarian vigilantism and his family’s monopolization of the economy suggest he is little more than a Sunni version of Bashar Assad.

Some regime change is inevitable. Even prior to the 12-day Israel-Iran war, the Islamic Republic’s Supreme Leader, Ali Khamenei, 86, is in poor health as he has had cancer and is partially paralyzed. Iranians were openly discussing his succession. Sudden hand-wringing that a further extremist Islamist regime might replace Khamenei is not realistic, and is meant to derail support for regime collapse. At worst, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps shares the same ideology of the clergy without its theological claims to legitimacy. To rescue the Islamic Republic, a state sponsor of terror and nuclear aspirant, would be to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.