Having read all the comments so far, here are a few thoughts about the idea of working to fracture the regime from within, versus hoping that crippling sanctions, a revolt, or an outright war will bring it down. As far as war or revolt, I don’t see how having allowed Qalibaf, both a more capable manager and less ideologically reckless politician than AN, would have brought about an uprising or apocalyptic showdown with the West, especially the latter considering that the ultimate decision on nukes and aid to terrorists is made by rahbar anyway.
As far as the sanctions scenario, you also have to consider that the average Iranian is simply not willing to go along with this option. It’s not about being greedy or completely selfish either. They basically have to choose to watch their children starve in the hopes that heavier sanctions might bring the regime down, an outcome which is not even guaranteed. In North Korea, people are resorting to cannibalism and the government is still in charge. Saddam faced drastic sanctions in the ‘90s with a heavy toll on the population, and he still didn’t go until a full invasion removed him.
The big picture is this: While I agree this regime is not reformable, whether we agree with them or not, or share their view of Rohani or not, many of those who supported the reformists and backed Mousavi are now re-energized by Rohani’s election. Even from a revolt scenario, the two biggest uprisings in the last 33 years happened when reformists were motivated and carrying momentum. The first was in ’99 in response to a reformist paper being shut down, and the second was ten years later when a reformist candidate was cheated. Just from the standpoint of bringing people to the streets again in the future, I don’t see how sitting back and allowing the ‘reform’ faction of the regime to be beaten down would have been a good strategy.