Ronald Asmus, an executive director at German Marshall Fund, advocates regime change in Iran

Dr. Ronald Asmus, executive director of German Marshall Fund’s Transatlantic Center in Brussels, said in a press release on the GMF website:

"Ramin is a true intellectual in the finest sense. He has many friends and admirers in Europe, West and East. He represents a wonderful synergy of the best of Western and Eastern democratic intellectual traditions. We are all delighted that he is free."

Now, let's see how Mr. Asmus thinks about Iran and weather it is likely that Ramin Jahanbegloo, his admired friend, shares his point of view:

The choice of how to respond to Iran’s growing threat to the West in general and Israel in particular is not an easy one. One option is to try to stop Iran’s nuclear program via an air and missile strike -- but such a step is unlikely to work militarily and could have disastrous consequences. The other is to shift to a longer-term strategy of containment while working for peaceful regime change. While that might work over time, it is unlikely to stop Iran from going nuclear in the short term if it is determined to do so. (Source)

Toppling Saddam’s regime was a legitimate and necessary goal. His removal will make Iraq, the region, and the world a better place, the current chaos acting parts of the reconstruction effort notwithstanding. But rarely in American diplomacy has the right goal been pursued so poorly (although, to be fair, Europe also spectacularly botched the crisis).

[...]

If the United States is to be seen as a promoter of democracy in the Arab world, it must show that it is committed to peace between Israelis and Palestinians. Such steps need to be matched by a strategy for promoting positive regime change in Iran. Unlike the case of Saddam’s Iraq, there is a real chance that such change could come from within. Unfortunately, that could take longer than Tehran’s quest for nuclear weapons. The West therefore needs a strategy that prevents Iran from going nuclear and encourages democratic change.

[...]

In the late 1960s, for example, the alliance adopted a grand strategy based on the Harmel Report— one critical to eventually winning the Cold War. That successful strategy combined elements of offence and defense. Nato used a strong military to deter the Soviet Union, along with détente and engagement to assist the political transformation of communist countries. Such a policy would now be called regime change by peaceful means. (Source)

American and European leaders have started to talk about the need to promote greater freedom, justice and democracy in the "Greater Middle East." While Americans see this as the crucial battleground in the war on terror, Europeans want their southern neighbors to be stable and well-governed, to stem the flows of illegal migration and organized crime. Both sides have accepted that working with local partners for peaceful democratic regime change today is the best way of avoiding violent revolution or military action tomorrow. (Source)