Is 'regime change' at work in Iran?

Nearly three weeks after the presidential election in Iran the dust raised by the losing candidate, Mir Hossein Mousavi, alleging massive fraud has not still settled, and the streets of Tehran and some other towns of the country continue to witness protests by his supporters and the police action against them. But does that signify that the decisive win of the incumbent, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, was the result of rigging engineered by official agencies? Or is the US, which has failed to bend Iran to its will in the past 30 years and is now accusing it of nuclear ambition, at work applying its interventionist technique of 'regime change', a somewhat subtle way of putting in place a ruling elite with a favourable perspective?
In the first instance, one feels intrigued that the West, which only casually comments on the purely cooked-up election results, for instance, in Egypt where a friendly leader has been in charge for so long, has risen with one voice in support of the protesting crowds and is constantly propagating the view that Mousavi has been cheated out of his legitimate right, without regard to the other version of the story. The suspicion of Washington's machinations that this zealousness to see Mousavi declared the winner creates is reinforced by more solid evidence of its involvement in the current Iranian turmoil. And when well-informed and highly respected persons like Paul Craig Roberts, who was Assistant Secretary in the Reagan administration, author of books and contributing foreign editor for Sun National Media Canada Eric Margolis, and writer analyst James Corbett cite facts and figures that tend to justify the conclusion of US involvement, it becomes hard to dismiss the charge.
The history of intense hostility between the US and Iran has led the former to play its usual game of destabilising the 'recalcitrant' regimes. The Bush administration, as the sole superpower assigning itself the right to have governments of its choice in countries considered hostile, made no secret of its plans. The Congress sanctioned $120 million for 'anti-regime media broadcasts into Iran' and another $75 million to strengthen opposition forces. One of its hawkish officials, John Bolton, is on record having said that a military attack on Iran would "be the last option after economic sanctions and attempts to foment a popular revolution had failed". There could, therefore, be little doubt about the view that the current propaganda and disinformation campaign about Iran is being carried out in pursuit of that policy.