Depends on the nature of the war. Many are (incorrectly) assuming it would be an Iraq-type invasion, occupation, policing, rebuilding, "hearts and minds" effort. ....in which case you'd be correct about the imprudence of such an undertaking. But thankfully that's not in the cards.
This action will be done primarily through the air, and confined to destroying Iran's "Navy," what's left of their air force, and their nuke facilities. .....and it'll all be over relatively quickly.
Erasmus ("The most disadvantageous peace is better than the most just war") is right.
Neville Chamberlain evidently thought so as well. But he and his ilk quickly learned that "disadvantageous peace" eventually leads to disaster and war.
You make it sound quick, easy, and painless; like there will be no repercussions. If Iraq has taught us anything, it's that that's never the case.
I remember before the Iraq war started, V.P. Cheney was on television talking about how we were going to use Iraq's oil revenues to rebuild the country, and how the war itself would cost us only about 10 billion or so. I'm not going to get down on Cheney for being wrong, none of us expected Iraq to turn out the way that it has, but the fact that a person deeply involved in planning the war was so wildly wrong about its aftermath indicates what a messy business war is.
For me the lesson of the Iraq war has been that the grinding frustration of diplomacy is better than the uncertainty of war. War with the Persians is not going to be so easy as a few weeks of stand-off bombing. The carriers are useful as a threat and a deterrent, but the only victory short of a major military ramp-up (which is impossible in today's political climate) will come at the negotiating table.