Are we really back to 'regime change'? -- Jennifer Rubin

[erronis]

https://contrarian.substack.com/p/words-and-phrases-we-could-do-without-e1c

With the strike on Iran’s nuclear sites, Donald Trump has risked engaging us in another foreign war. Already, chatter abounds about “regime change” as the only way to end permanently the Iranian threat.

On Sunday, Trump personally contradicted Vice President JD Vance’s assertion that our policy was not regime change. “It’s not politically correct to use the term, ‘Regime Change,’ but if the current Iranian Regime is unable to MAKE IRAN GREAT AGAIN, why wouldn’t there be a Regime change??? MIGA!!!,” Trump insisted, echoing the sentiments of former president George W. Bush, whom Trump excoriated for, well…pursuing regime change.

. . .

Visions of regime change dance in the heads of Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) and other Iraq War proponents. As someone whose worldview has altered based on decades of this failed approach (evidence and facts can change your mind!), I would urge that we collectively remember that “regime change” has a rotten track record.

“Going back in the post-World War II era, history has shown the United States very capable at both toppling governments and then promptly getting the sequel disastrously wrong,” Time magazine reminds us. “Grenada, Panama, and Haiti left U.S. administrations in the political muck. Vietnam was the biggest catastrophe in most Americans’ memories.” We can decapitate regimes, but—more often than not—we wind up with fruitless, virtually endless war; failed states; and/or worse outcomes (e.g., the Muslim Brotherhood replacing Hosni Mubarak).

. . .