[Widget Jr]

Think about "They wanted to be attacked" and "No practical military option exists to defeat the mullahs." Both these statements are to be true.

Yes, we could bloody Iran really well, except we have no strategy to capitalize on it and it never a good idea to attack when a enemy wants it. Other than getting some revenge, a single massive air strike would accomplish little in the long run or backfire on us and our allies.

If or when it comes to attacking Iran, there needs to be a long term strategy, and any campaign needs to really hurt the regime, not just the Iranian military.

[NorseViking]

The military option on Iran has two consequences.
It would empower the Iranian regime and there would be different POTUS after the elections.

[Cronos]

Correct. The USAF could win over in a few hours or days. But then what?

[Zhang Fei]

[Yes, we could bloody Iran really well, except we have no strategy to capitalize on it and it never a good idea to attack when a enemy wants it. Other than getting some revenge, a single massive air strike would accomplish little in the long run or backfire on us and our allies.
If or when it comes to attacking Iran, there needs to be a long term strategy, and any campaign needs to really hurt the regime, not just the Iranian military. ]

---

Harassment and the destruction of Iran’s expensive weapon systems as well as its nuclear program are a good long term strategy. We destroyed a sizable chunk of Spain’s overseas empire without occupying Madrid. We dismantled the Soviet Union without occupying Moscow. The Israelis destroyed Iraq’s nuclear program. Saddam never got a weapon going. We destroyed half the Iranian navy in the 80’s after they began to attack gulf shipping. They stopped.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Praying_Mantis

There are no final resolutions to many things. We just meet each new challenge as it comes.