The idea of regime change is pure stupidity because you can't control regime change. The Russians got rid of the Tsar & got Stalin and they later got rid of communism and had economic meltdown. The Germans got rid of the Keiser and got Hitler. Iraq got rid of Saddam and got mass terror. After Desert Storm it was intentionally decided to leave a weakened Saddam in power and the result was a stable Iraq but Saddam was no threat to anybody but his own people. In Iran they got rid of the Shah who was a western ally & friend to israel. They had a revolution, got the ayatollahs and not we got a country which wants nukes and to bully other countries. After WW2 the US decided to keep the emperor of Japan but in a ceremonial role only and Japan thrived and is a very peaceful nation. In Iran there are people like Mousavi who call themselves reformers and are smooth talkers like Obama rather than firebrands like Ahmadinejad but policy wise they are not much different. The west though will of course love him and call him moderate and they will go out their way to strenghen him. No more sanctions and an easing up on pressure over the nuclear issue until it slowly gets put on the sideline by the west who have what the consider more important things to worry about like palestinians rather than a nuclear Iran because their leader says the things they want to hear. Regime change would be the worst thing for Israel to work towards. Better a stable country but with a controlled weak leadership than taking a gamble on regime change which might make things worse rather than better. If we can't get military action better to just push for stronger sanctions but from behind the scenes. Israel need to try keep a low profile on this because it does have nukes and its only a matter of time before some smartass in the US or UN get the idea disarm Israel first to encourage Iran to end its own nuclear program. The last thing we need is to be forced to pay the price because nobody wants to confront Iran.

IMO you misinterpret, because you mix up two aspects of international relationships (we know that "War is diplomacy by other means..."): Regime change is designed for protagonists to cooperate, collaborate, contain, control, command (somewhat) with the existent regime, while (hopefully) developing a new regime, & generally not get too involved directly, or at least not perceived to be involved. It almost inevitably (as you state) leads to extremism of the most rabid sort, as a continuation of the underlying culture, because (once brought down), in the absence of law & structure, only the strong & ruthless survive. This is unless there is a truly (modern) visionary, principled leader who manages to uproot the previous culture. Even then, it can revert-think Ataturk & Turkey. The second is complete military victory & submission of the enemy to your edicts & policies (your example of Japan omitted Germany post WW II). In both of these cases, Japan & Germany were forcefully & comprehensively dragged into the late 20th century politically, while rebuilding from scratch industrially. They also had the advantage of very disciplined social structures, strong national identities, & a ready market for their new production. There is also the 3rd, "half pregnant" Gazan or Chechan model, where the stronger party kicks the living s__t out of the other, than says: "I don't care what you do internally, but if you cross that line, I will destroy you" & withdraws. Not a complete resolution, not really positively educational or constructive, but it serves it's purpose in the short term. The main negative aspect of all this is the unwillingness of Western society to recognise that as part of nature, biology, anthropology, genetics, economics, & politics, there are unavoidable losers & destruction, thereby perpetuating comfortable myths, delusions, manipulations; but mainly, refusing to deal with a problem that eventually explodes, wreaking havoc on a far larger area. There is a reason for the saying "Spare the rod & spoil the child". Of course, the US nuking Mexico City is a mite "overkill", but think of the difference in long term results between Pershing going after Pancho Villa & the chaos on the US-Mexican border today; the Spanish-American War & the Bay of Pigs; or eradicating the Barbary Coast pirates versus paying off Sudanese pirates today. BTW, I actually agree with most of your conclusions-just not all the analysis! Last, don't forget that the US, via Obama, Clinton, Barak, & Tziplela is pushing regime change in Israel also...

Why the hell are all these information made public? How it was leaked from the state department? Who is responsible for all this mess? How on earth can the U.S. allow such a thing to happen? I think all the enemies' intelligence agencies are rejoicing for getting free info on a golden platter... I am sure the enemies will get an insight of how decision making is cooked regardless of the sensitive information being exposed.