“Regime-change” in Iran, right now, is more likely to be reflected in a change in the balance of power within the system rather than its replacement.

Tony Karon in the National/ here

".... A regime collapses only when it has become so isolated that its soldiers and police find themselves deployed against their next-door neighbours. In Iran, the regime and its security forces can still count on support from millions of people. Betting on a successful insurrection in Iran right now is just plain daft.

... Iran seems to be in a stalemate where the regime can’t destroy the opposition, but the opposition is unable to topple the regime. “Regime-change” in Iran, right now, is more likely to be reflected in a change in the balance of power within the system rather than its replacement. It’s hard to see how this changes the nuclear equation because the opposition has repeatedly made clear its own rejection of the key western nuclear demand that Iran must end its enrichment of uranium.

Moreover, despite the “regime change” clamour in Washington, it’s not clear that there’s much the US can do to help the Iranian opposition. But leaving the nuclear question up to Iran’s opposition does create political cover for stepping away from a policy of threats and ultimatums that was going nowhere. After all, there may be little prospect of imminent success in stopping Iran’s nuclear programme, but that nuclear programme does not present any imminent threat."