The Perennial 'Regime Change' Sales Pitch
THE CLAIM: Iran is a Perpetual Threat Requiring 'Regime Change' The opinion piece, like a broken record, suggests the Iranian government is inherently unstable, unpopular, and on the verge of collapse, therefore presenting a ripe opportunity for 'external support' (read: intervention). It frames the question of intervention not as 'if,' but 'when' and 'how,' implying an inevitability to US
involvement beyond diplomatic engagement. THE EVIDENCE: A History of Failed Projections and Lobbying The 'Imminent Collapse of Iran' narrative has been a staple of certain Washington D.C. think tanks and politicians for decades, consistently failing to materialize. Recall John Bolton's 2017 op-ed in The Wall Street Journal , 'The Way to Stop Iran’s Bomb: Bomb Iran,' or his 2015 speech to the MEK
(Mujahedeen-e-Khalq) where he declared, 'The declared policy of the United States should be the overthrow of the Iranian leadership’ regime in Tehran.' This is not new analysis; it's a recurrent ambition. The MEK, a group formerly categorized as a foreign terrorist organization by the U.S. State Department until 2012, has consistently been a significant foreign donor and lobbyist for regime change
in Iran ( National Council of Resistance of Iran, Lobbying Disclosure Act Filings, various years ). They are just one facet of a broader lobbying operation. THE CONTRADICTIONS: Selective Outrage and Convenient Blind Spots Apparently, the same people who decry 'external interference' when it comes from nations like Russia or China are quite content to champion it when the target is Iran. One might