You're right, if the future holds the possibility of danger, we should never try to improve anything at all. Better to always stay with the misery we already know, and never try to improve our lives. Good point. /s
When "we" "improve" other countries, it often doesn't come well. "We" tend to create power vacuums and help the rise of fundamentalist groups. "We" messed up Iraq and neighboring countries. "We" helped create the opportunity for the Islamic Revolution to occur. All of what I'm saying is documented fact, not conspiracy theories. Recent history.
All I'm saying is self evident to any thinking person: do not wish for the "collapse" of a nation state. Not unless you are willing to live there during its collapse. Not from the comfort of your home.
Having the decency to exercise some restraint before wishing for the collapse of anyone's nation state is a lesson we should have learned by now.
I don't think we should intervene military to cause such a collapse. But we should exert peaceful pressure to hasten it, just like we did with the USSR.
In some countries this was solved with external intervention (like adhesion to the EU) but others ended up being post-soviet dictatorships. In my humble opinion, we wouldn't have seen this many wars unfold in Eastern Europe if both Yugoslavia's and USSR's collapse had been better organized and supervised. Citizens of countries under oppressive regimes must fight against them... But avoid at all costs a power vacuum to appear.
Trying to switch systems peacefully without losing total control of a country is not an easy feat.
Even countries that managed to do that like Germany's unification, Portugal (Carnation Revolution), Greece (military junta fall) or Spain ended up with regrets and damage that takes generations to cure.
Had the transition not been so chaotic and fast, a lot of grief would have been spared.
I guess what's leaving you open here to hostile takes is that you're not mentioning other things to hope for instead, so some number are defaulting to interpreting your comments as "the status quo in Iran is fine".
I hope the Iranians get a better deal (hopefully without being part of some power game by external nations), because they deserve it.
I do not wish any families living in Iran to go through a "collapse", especially not a violent one.
See? If people reply to my comments with reasonable questions, I reply in a similar tone. When people go in full attack mode, they get worse responses. Which is the tone that HN should favor?
A vaccine has a small risk that it can cause harmful effects to a small subset of the population. The predicted outcome is very positive.
Societal collapse and power vacuums in Iran and neighboring countries have a high risk of resulting in harm to a large population. The risk is very high and it has happened before -- in the same country, even!
Collapse and revolutions, unlike vaccines, are a high risk gamble. They can, for example, result in the Islamic Revolution, ISIS or who knows what.
So I don't think the analogy works at all.
(Pro tip: Islamic Republic propaganda wouldn't point to the rise of their own movement as a bad thing, like I did, so your suspicion is illogical).
From HN guidelines: assume good faith. Are you doing this?
Regardless, not wishing for war and collapse is an universal feeling, and it has nothing to do with supporting Iran's theocracy. Just in case, let me state explicitly that I think the current state of Iran is a tragedy and that I wish they lived in a democracy, and that I of course do not support any theocratic dictatorship, Islamic or otherwise. I specifically find the Islamic Republic as a depressing turn of events, when Iran could have been so much better.