Looks like we're going to be attacking...

We should "level" a country of 88m people, because we don't like their government (which is not freely or fairly elected, let's not forget). Gotcha.

Now, if we do so, roughly what proportion of that 88m population do you think the UK should provide refuge to? (Bearing in mind the UK is about 10% of the G7's population, and 7.5% of NATO's)
Always assuming you foresee leaving any survivors, of course - because there is just one minor hiccup.
"Article II
In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
* Killing members of the group;
* Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
* Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
* Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
* Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

But, regardless of such fine detail, do you feel that your suggestion would improve world peace and stability...?

Too right !!
Parachute in Justin Welby 

I think that counts as "cruel and inhumane" under the Geneva Convention and ECHR.

The main problem is a right-wing, nationalist government. Since Modi came to power, long-term improvements in the development and poverty indicators have levelled off or deteriorated.

Remind me - haven't some governments tried banning religion in the recent past?
Now, which were they, and did it work out well for them?

Still, I'm glad I've finally found somebody willing to point to one particular article in the European Convention on Human Rights that they think is a bad thing.
www.echr.coe.int/documents/d/echr/convention_ENG
ARTICLE 9
Freedom of thought, conscience and religion
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief, in worship, teaching, practice and observance.
2. Freedom to manifest one’s religion or beliefs shall be subject only to such limitations as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society in the interests of public safety, for the protection of public order, health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Very similar wording to the UN universal declaration of human rights, btw.
www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights
Article 18
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

How will you be enforcing that? Will you be sending troops around the country to hunt out priests? Did that work well when it was tried here across the 16th to 18th centuries?

Woah, hold on... A minute ago you were saying we should have "levelled" the country years ago (accepting mass deaths as inevitable)... just because. Without, seemingly, having any compelling or credible intelligence to justify it.

Now you're saying that "if necessary" there'd be specific information required... clearly above and beyond a dossier presented to parliament, produced by the Joint Intelligence Committee.

How many Houthi-caused deaths do you think would be saved by extensive bombing of Iran with the intention of regime change? I'm guessing you haven't been overly bothered over the last decade by the near-on half million Yemenis killed during the civil war?

How many deaths do you think would be caused by a western-led attempt at regime change within Iran?

How well has western-led enforced regime change worked to stabilise other countries...?