Even in the event of a war? When I say "direct and imminent threat" I'm talking about war being declared or border skirmishes that keep escalating. So if the Pact is a "direct and imminent threat", supporting the opposition in a Pact member that favors peace with the UFP is a good idea for SI.
It sounds like you're looking for excuses to rationalize immoral acts. It's always easy enough to convince yourself that "the ends justify the means," but it rarely turns out well in the long run. Better to devote your energies to finding ways to do the right thing rather than looking for rationalizations for doing wrong.
Supporting a party that wants peace is all well and good. Employing dirty tricks and black-ops operations to force events to go the way you want is not "supporting" anything but your own selfish interests and arrogant desire for control. And in so doing, you undermine the legitimacy of any peace party. If their people find out that they only came to power because your spies helped overthrow their opposition (and such secrets never stay secret for long), then they will lose their people's trust and be worthless as an ally. If you really want to support a peaceful opposition, then you need to do it in a way that's aboveboard and respects the sovereign rights of their own people. You need to let them make the choice for themselves, or it will never stick. It would be stupid to employ such tactics to stave off a war in the short term only to guarantee another war later on.
No. Wrong. It sounds like you're blowing this out of proportion unnecessarily. And I find the assumptions you make about me offensive. I'm not going to continue this any further.