"Should" Israel intervene in Iran?

I was just asked; "Should" Israel intervene in Iran?

Here is MY reply based on my knowledge-

Putting aside the massive amount of logistics and the emmense distance -through and over hostile Islami countries. 

We -"You know who" have been operating in Iran since the time of the Shah -to save and silently evacuate and or assist the Jews of Iran to leave. 

And as "we" did recently....

Though the Shah may have done massive business deals with Israeli companies like Solel Bonei -the building company and ZIM. 

The relationship was always a "periphery" alliance: practical, transactional, and often conducted in the shadows.

He had an atypical antisemitic view bordering on "unfriendly" attitude of the Jews. Though the Shah saw Israel as a strategic partner to counter Arab nationalism and Soviet influence, he was often dismissive of Jewish political power in public, creating a complex environment for the 80,000 Jews living there at the time.

So if you truly want to know  "Should" Israel intervene in Iran?

It ISN'T "Should" but HOW?

"Winning the hearts and minds"-was a "Western" phrase and posture of Western Christian Democracies  Read CIA In essence it  was a fundamental disconnect: the attempt to apply a "Western Christian Democracy" template onto a culture with entirely different social, religious, and political gravity.

The West tried to manufacture "hearts and minds" to support a proxy state in Viet Nam, and the result was a Total Failure.

Iran 2026: The West is observing a population (especially the youth and the Shi'ite working class) that is already turning its heart and mind away from the regime due to internal oppression.

Today, the Iranian youth (Gen Z) aren't being "sold" democracy; they are demanding it because of the "oppressive Sharia laws" and economic ruin.

ALL complete political government societal changes are successfully achieved solely by the desie of the majority to do so.

In order to create a change in the "Islamic Republic" , the youth of Iran must demand it as well as the majority of those from within the Shi'ite lower class majority who are the backbone of the Islamic Republic.

No amount of "outside" help can create a change in ANY country, but more importantly so in the fanatical Shi'ite Islamic world. 

Currently, the debate in Jerusalem and Washington has shifted away from boots on the ground toward "enabling" the people—providing satellite internet (bypassing the regime's digital blackouts) and targeting the IRGC's economic assets rather than the nation's infrastructure.

When the Ayatollah and the Islamic Republic was created it wasn't created in a "vaccum" it was created in the demographics of Shi'ite Islam birthrate. The "Shi'ite backbone" —the lower class—is actually the group most squeezed by the current economic collapse.

Just like ALL the corners of the world - including the states of Michigan and Minnesota- one of the major means of achieving Dar-al-Islam- the caliphate political concept of an Islamic state  is by the rapid birthrate. 

This as we can see is achieved successfully (n the states of Michigan and Minnesota by Social Securityfraud) - Multiple wives, Female Genital Mutilation (FGM)  and no abortions.

These are to Shi'ites a religious obligation. 

Add to this the oppressive Islamic Sharia laws regulating women to be submissive and docile.

Change must come from the "Shi'ite lower class" and until that "backbone" decides the regime no longer provides the "Social Security" or religious integrity they desire, the head of the snake remains attached.

So should we help?

The basic requirement for change from within in the "fanatical Shi'ite Islamic world" is the ultimate lesson of the 20th century's "Other Wars." You can translate a manual or a value system, but you cannot translate a revolution onto a people who haven't requested it.

Those of us with knowledge would say ONLY  when the people of Iran have toppled the regime and have "REQUESTED" we should assist them.