Keep the focus on stopping Iran’s nukes — ‘regime change’ is too risky a game

Regime change in Iran may wind up happening as a result of the current conflict, but it’s absolutely to be avoided as a goal.

In particular, don’t let Israel’s difficulties in completely destroying Tehran’s nuclear program lead to mission creep or any moving of the goalposts — even though the central problem is the ayatollahs who’d have their fingers on the buttons.

No civilized human of good will would shed a tear for the Islamic Republic, but Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya have shown the perils of ousting an entire regime without clear, practical ideas for what comes next — and that our ability to steer another country’s course is extremely limited.

Trying to impose the shah’s heir, or any group of exiles, as a new government seems guaranteed to fail, as Washington doesn’t know enough (or can’t make effective use of what it does know) to pull off some miraculous coup.

President Donald Trump certainly won’t be sending in US ground troops, nor will any Western nation so intervene; it’s hard to see even any of Iran’s neighbors taking that risk (though some might aim to bite off some bits of territory).

Yet keeping reasonable order in Iran has to be a priority for the rest of the world: It’s not only a major oil and gas exporter in its own right, it’s positioned to shut off the Strait of Hormuz, through which a fifth of the planet’s energy now passes.

Serious disorder in Iran, such as a civil war, risks destabilizing (among others) Iraq, Turkey and nuclear-armed Pakistan — none of which is completely stable now.

Meanwhile, Moscow and (especially) Beijing would be looking to guard their own interests, and spread their influence — more bad news for the West.

All of this argues for Washington doing what it can to prevent the conflict from creating a total power vacuum in Tehran.

Israel has every right and military need to keep knocking out the regime’s missile capabilities, its top generals and so on; eviscerating the Republican Guard is beyond legit — but leaving Iran with enough civic skeleton for some new interim government to rapidly form seems a must.

Oddly enough, this is an added argument for Washington joining Israel’s campaign as far as dropping those bunker-busters on the Fordow nuke site: Taking out Tehran’s nuclear program is the overriding goal here; getting the job finished fast may be the best way to limit the damage to the rest of the country.

Yet it’s also a reason for Iran’s current rulers to give in and give up on their nuclear dreams: The risk they’ll be ousted grows every day the bombing continues.

Trump’s instincts are solid so far: Iran can’t go nuclear, but America won’t get bogged down in another forever war; Israel’s campaign needs to end successfully and rapidly.

Regime change must be left to Iran’s own people; trying to impose it from outside is a fool’s game.