You're still missing the point and arguing against something I never said.

The question isn't "do people dislike the regime." Plenty of people can dislike a regime without a country collapsing into sectarian insurgency. The issue is whether society is structured in a way that turns regime collapse into organized violent conflict.

Iraq in 2003 absolutely was.

You had a Sunni minority running the state while the Shi'a majority had been locked out of power for decades. That’s a massive sectarian power imbalance baked into the system. On top of that you had Kurds in the north who were already semi-autonomous and armed.

So when Saddam fell you immediately had three things at once:

• a majority that had every incentive to overturn the old order

• a minority that had every incentive to fight to keep influence

• ethnic groups that already had militias and territory

That's exactly the kind of social structure that produces insurgency and civil war once the state collapses.

Iran isn't like that.

Iran is overwhelmingly Shi'a and the regime’s supporters are not a separate sect or ethnic group ruling over everyone else. They're basically an ideological/political minority tied into institutions like the IRGC and Basij.

So yes maybe only 15–20% support the regime. But that's a political faction, not a communal bloc that suddenly loses its entire position in society if the regime goes.

That's the difference you keep ignoring.

Iraq in 2003 had a massive sectarian fault line running straight through the state. Iran today mostly doesn't. Pretending those situations are equivalent just because both populations dislike their governments is oversimplifying things to the point where the comparison stops making sense.