No, Regime Change in Iran Is Not the Answer

Cook favors the third option of pursuing regime change, which is arguably the stupidest course of action.

Steven Cook looked down and declared that there is no difference between good and bad things:

The two seemingly opposing policies—engaging in negotiations versus conducting military strikes on Iran’s nuclear facilities—are not actually opposites. Either one would likely have the same effect: providing a lifeline to leaders of a terrible regime at a moment when it seems most vulnerable.

If you ignore all the other significant differences between pursuing a negotiated agreement and waging an illegal preventive war, I suppose you can pretend that both would have “the same effect.” That would be extremely poor analysis and not remotely helpful, but it would allow you to posture as being above the fray. On one path, there is a workable nonproliferation compromise that resolves the issue without bloodshed, and on the other there is massive death and destruction that likely results in the creation of an Iranian nuclear weapon, but for Cook these paths lead to the same place because they might both shore up the regime. This is a ridiculous way to think about U.S. Iran policy, and no one should pay it any heed.