I'm sure that many Iranians would support the regime being toppled, and so would the Iranian diaspora (understandably, since most of them were either forced out of the country or chose to leave due to the revolution, so of course they would be in favor of regime change). However, it would be extremely unpopular in general in the West. One recent poll indicated that 7 out of 10 Americans don't want the US government to take military action against Iran for killing protesters who demonstrate against the Iranian government. https://poll.qu.edu/poll-release?releaseid=3945 You barely see that kind of consensus on any political polling in the US, and what voters think actually matters for a few months because the midterm elections are coming up.

Yes, deeply unpopular in the countries who would be providing the militaries. The countries in question tend to be democratic, thus unpopular decisions that have no real benefit to that country are unlikely to be made.

How well did that work out in Libya?

How about South Korea, Japan, Germany, and France? US military intervention has had really good outcomes in the past, why just cherry pick the bad ones?

That's a ridiculously cherry-picked list. What about Iran (1953), Guatemala (1954), Congo (1960), Cuba (1961), Vietnam, Dominican Republic (1965)... I'm still in the sixties.

Basically anyone anywhere in the planet other than the US would find your statement outrageous.

I would suggest reading into the history of South Korea after the war. Nothing suggests to me that it was a good outcome. As a small sample: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwangju_Uprising

Preferential satrap treatment is for countries whose geopolitical alignment helps US... i.e. containing USSR, PRC. Iran/Shah muscle and Saudi money use to be US twin pillar strategy for MENA influence, including coldwar anticommunist containment. Israel is muscle now, and they sure as shit isn't going to share with Iran. Deputy sheriff position is zero-sum.

The current realpolitik geopolitical fate for Iran is to be suppressed and relegated, regional players don't want to redistribute power / influence to accommodate Iran. Bluntly Iran is too big allow to flourish, but not so big it cannot be suppressed. That's Iran's fate under current dynamics, no one wants to save Iran, they want to neutralize Iran, naive to pretend otherwise. Iran is no longer in the minority of potential strategic intervention successes, its in the bucket of dozens of countries US intervention fucked over because that's the strategic end goal is for these countries to remain weak. If Iran wants bigger lightcone, it needs to fight for one.

As an Iranian, nothing hurts me more than someone outside my country lecturing Iranians about Iran. Vast majority of Persians are waiting for the US and Israel to attack the regime and finish off this mafia that's kept us hostages for half a century.

You live outside the country.

You know that you are only speaking about diaspora Iranians. There are many many especially rural, especially conservative Iranians and veterans who would not welcome a war

I imagine war is always deeply unpopular!

But it was asked what else the West could do beyond what it’s already doing.

It might be possible to do a targetted kidnapping/assassination without provoking a war. Or it might not be. Such actions become unpredictable fast.