Is regime change the only acceptable outcome for the US in Iran?

Arms Control Association analysts have argued that strikes on Iran would likely set the program back only temporarily because Iran’s technical knowledge cannot be bombed away.

States attacked over nuclear programs may conclude that only an actual nuclear deterrent can prevent future attacks (the North Korea vs Libya lesson).

Netanyahu’s criticisms of JCPOA were that it would only delay Iran’s nuclear capabilities & that it didn’t include their missile program (kind of unrealistic to expect a country not to have ballistic missiles IMO, but that’s another topic).

Absent regime change, bombing Iran also only delays nuclear capabilities. The main difference is that instead of creating a platform for future diplomacy, the most likely outcome is that this increases the likelihood the regime pursues a weapon in the long-term.

To summarize it… Absent regime change, leaving JCPOA will be historically framed a major strategic miscalculation. But if regime change is achieved & the new regime is cooperative, this military operation will be historically framed as a major success.

The problem is regime change may not be easy & there’s no guarantee a new regime will be more amenable. What would it take?