If military force might liberate people as a side effect, is that…bad?

Moment 516

https://youtube.com/shorts/0UtWAJNYxJA?feature=share

Apparently if a war might also free people, that makes it immoral. Liberation is only allowed when it’s useless or unintentional:

An offensive launched in self-defense, but which might also free a brutalized population, is somehow disqualified because of that side effect. Apparently, liberation is only acceptable when it happens accidentally—or not at all.

Israel’s real sin, it seems, isn’t defeating the mullahs—it’s the risk that Iranians might actually end up free. When war threatens to undo a dictatorship, critics don’t celebrate the possibility—they panic, as if tyranny must be preserved to avoid the dreaded specter of “regime change.”