But an Iranian campaign may not look like Iraq.
I have often thought we need another model for dealing with these countries. What we are doing in Iraq resembles the Marshall Plan after WWII. While that worked well for Europe, I am not sure it will in Iraq. I think that in Iraq's case, we should have toppled Sadaam, then handed over the reigns to one of his underlings in exchange for a promise that Iraq would serve our interests forevermore. And if that guy didn't keept the promise, we'd make an example of him too. That is certainly not the American way, but would have saved us a lot of pain and treasure.
As for Iran, I think occupation would require a draft. Frankly, we don't have the $$ or political will for it. I don't see anything wrong, however, with bombing them into submission and letting them pick up the pieces. And if they misbehave, we just do it again. Again, its not the American way, but it is better to be feared than loved (from a geo-policitical standpoint anyway). And we will never be loved in the Muslim world.
You just made a very accurate description of our foreign policy for a very long time - "he may be an SOB but he's our SOB." It wasn't ineffective but it didn't turn out to be stable in the long run. And I am not a Bush acolyte but I must express an open admiration for the breadth of thought that went into the change of that policy in favor of building a representative government in Iraq. It was far riskier and far more costly and it may in the end come to nothing...but I'm betting it will not.
As for Iran more comments below. I owe Savage Beast an answer.
Turkey must comprise the bulk of any occupation force. And Pakistan will demand involvement. It is unlikely that the US would be the long-term occupation solution. NATO would only provide limited resources. The UN would only show up after the fireworks, to negotiate cushy contracts. IMHO