Well, no. Alexander the Great was that. And that history also illustrates that grand change is no obvious predictor of "good" vs "bad". A lot of history must take place before answers to "how much of a good thing overall was this action?" I'll be a bit more patient in waiting this out to make even an amateurish too-soon evaluation. Even in states of euphoria for some, it is not illegitimate to have concerns before the "Fire" dims down.
Part of why we got here is because we and the former Shah didn't get along at the end (internal arguments about Oil Prices --- the Shah carried BIG weight in OPEC), and high-up politicians consultants of both parties refused to support him when internal problems arose. Familiar anti-Muslim ideas were put forward as far as support for Iranian people and especially women were common, but the force behind our abandonment of him was Oil prices. Base Republican voters tended to support the Shah, while the upper influencers of both parties did not. Bottomline: follow the money, but also admit the complexity. Regime change is a dangerous animal.
