I'll agree with the sentiment, but I don't think we should be putting anything in place.
We've got a real shit track record of trying to install governments in other nations only for it to bite us in the ass; Iran is kind of a prime example.
No we don't.
At worst, the record is mixed. People tend to only focus on the bad outcomes, especially the short-term ones, but success stories rarely make the news or the history books. There are PLENTY of counter-examples to the above.
We conquered and occupied Germany and put a friendly government in charge. To this day, they're economically powerful and solid allies.
We conquered and occupied Japan, same thing.
We occupied Korea and installed a Western-style government, and they are now an economic powerhouse and reliable ally for us.
We invaded Panama and took away their dictator... Panama is looking comparably stable at the moment.
There are many other examples. There are, of course, failures: Iraq Afghanistan. Bay of Pigs. A whole lot of stuff in South America. But we shouldn't throw up our hands and do nothing; that's the worst possible outcome.
There is going to be a power vacuum after the Iranian regime falls, and someone is going to fill it. We can either influence that, or have it revert back to status quo and have another entire generation of Hamas, Hezbollah, IRGC, Houti rebels... you name it.
Also, "installing governments" is not the same thing as "putting something in place." We put an arrangement in place with the most powerful warlord of Syria, vs. trying to drop an entire governing structure over top of it. Right now, the people seem to be calling for the return of a government run by a shah. We should help them get there, if for no other reason that if Iran is distracted with holding on to power domestically, it makes it a lot harder for them to interfere with, and attack, our interests overseas.
