No, none of those

The law is in large part a creation of the interests it serves --- in the case of copyright, that being publishers.

Changing that regime requires challenging the assumptions and spotlighting the harms and costs. Which is what IA undertook. It's an activist cause, yes, and one aligned with the Archive's interests and mission.

To that extent, IA's action is entirely commendable.

it's not in the archives interests to get sued out of existence. Breaking the law isn't just "challenging" something - they'll lose in court and set a bad precedent for future challenges.

Maybe it should separate its activism from its legal, and important, archiving mission; rather than throw the baby with bathwater.

I'm not aware of the Internet Archive being sued out of existence.

so it can't happen?

It hasn't.

Which suggests that the risk may have been well-considered.

This could of course change, but your counterfactual remains that.

How does it suggest that? What benefit did IA derive from getting sued?

Getting sued provides for testing and asserting law.

Losing is the part which you wish to avoid.

So IA picks a fight with opponents with a huge legal budget?