Regime Change and its Sceptics

I see that a neighbor of mine has written in to the Wall Street Journal today:

A Regime Change May Not Calm Iran

While everyone who loves peace would be pleased to accept the hope that Michael A. Ledeen has given in his commentary (“The Wider War,” editorial page, March 3) that a major regime change will lead to reformation of the Middle East, the alternatives to a failure to bring this about have to be seriously considered with a timeline that is unfortunately too short.

Not only has Ahmadinejad expressed his unchanging agenda that Iran must have nuclear weapons and long-range missiles to dominate the Middle East and to destroy Israel, but this goal has been endorsed by the religious leadership of that nation.

Merely changing from an admittedly charismatic but very dangerous leader to one who expresses the identical views will not be sufficient. Instead, the theocratic government of Iran must be replaced by a more tolerant leadership, not dedicated to the destruction of its neighbors and to their religious beliefs. If this is not possible, the time for jaw-jaw will be replaced by that of war-war.

Nelson Marans
Silver Spring, Md.

I guess he missed the meaning of “regime change.” So long as Iran remains in the clutches of the Islamic Republic, no mere change of personnel will do. Never mind “a more tolerant leadership;” you just can’t get that in the current system. Iran needs freedom, not musical chairs. And Nelson Marans is entirely right when he conlcudes by saying that if revolution fails, war is inevitable.