So the only thing I'll say is that a US attempt to destabilize Iran with heroin is a terrible idea, even if it were an honorable course of action (which it isn't). It's questionable the attempt would do much, if anything, to the Iranian regime, while the downsides an negative consequences are both severe and quite likely. So it doesn't even pass a simple cost/benefit test. No amount of theorizing will change that.
You say you are not interested in a "philosphical" argument, yet you claim the proposal is "[dishonorable]", which is a morally subjective judgment. While I'm inclined to agree with that judgment on the basis of my own personal beliefs, I am compelled to address it as it is a component of the proposal's acceptability/validity, even if you're not interested in discussing philosophy. Is it honorable? No, by most standards of judgement. Is that relevant? That's the argument.

Anyway, as for it being a "terrible" idea -- perhaps it is. But that depends on the purpose in question, what assumptions being made about its effects, and what consequences we're willing to accept/predict. It's very clear that the idea is driven by an entirely different purpose than what most other posters have; which goes all the way back to the original post asking questions about "our" definition of "victory".