True liberation comes from within, not from some external entity wishing to impose their foreign ideas and systems. This idea that the US (or Israel) is going to forcefully 'liberate' countries by imposing their systems and ideas on them is what got us 20+ years of pointless war in Afghanistan. It's what led to the crisis in Iran in the first place. The ruling class of the US empire is obsessed with imperial conquest and domination of resources and political capture.
I think the real illusion (or perhaps delusion) is this idea that countries in the Middle East are better off after the US and its proxies intervene.
Are the people of Libya better or worse off after the US 'intervention' there? What were they 'liberated' from? Functioning infrastructure? Is their quality of life better or worse now than it was under Qaddafi?
Was anything accomplished in Afghanistan except hardening the locals' hatred and resentment towards foreign occupying troops, thus strengthening the Taliban and giving ISIS a new foothold?
How did Vietnam go for the US? Did the people there appreciate their villages being napalmed in order to 'liberate' them? Did this result in 'liberation', or just widespread carnage and destruction and even more fierce resentment towards the US/West?
You're never going to be the force that 'liberates' a people who view you as an invader/occupier. This is the dumbest lie Western propaganda gaslights us with over and over to justify all these endless wars.
Even if Iranians loathe their rulers and their regime, they will rally around it to defend themselves from foreign interlopers. Attacking Iran is only going to harden Iranians against the US/Israel. They may hate their government, but it has to be them that changes it - not the US or Israel.
Also, if you're concerned about people falling into the 'trap' of Islamists, I think you might want to consider the fact that few countries have done more to back various Islamist factions than the US. Osama Bin Laden used to be a CIA asset. The US funded, armed and backed the Mujaheddin in Afghanistan. The US backed Suharto and his brutal Islamic regime in Indonesia. The US is now giving tacit support to the ISIS-affiliated 'rebels' that just took over Syria. And of course the US provides weapons and support to Saudi Arabia - an Islamic theocratic monarchy with an appalling human rights record.
Netenyahu also supported Hamas at one point knowing that it would be divisive and beneficial to his aims/interests.
Have you noticed where the arms and equipment are largely coming from that many of these various Islamist groups and factions are using in Iraq, Yemen and Syria? It's all US-made. That's not even counting the stockpiles of arms and equipment left behind in Afghanistan that has been seized by the Taliban. Perhaps they'll just add it to the stockpiles of existing Stinger missiles and arms the US gave them back when they were calling themselves the Mujahedin.
If the idea of siding with and backing Islamists appalls you, then uncritical support of the US empire is a peculiar position.
It seems to me that the most voracious and prolific backing of Islamists hasn't been by Marxists, but by the US under the guise of fighting 'communism' or ‘terrorism’.
