“We can work over Iran just fine from our existing positions. There is no need to move closer.”
That is not the kind of response we will need, as it is contrary to the kind of response Iran will make, which will not be conventional attack but in line with how the Quds Force operates. There is no need for what you suggest.
But there is a need for our close-in unconventional strike means to be very, very close but to be safely away from the Shia militias in and around Baghdad, and they cannot operate in Iraqi Kurdistan. And there is much to be made by the in your face move to the Mullahs demonstrating the opposite of being threatened by them - we move closer.
Conventional and unconventional strike does NOT need to be based close. As others have said to you, you apparently do not know about the changes made to the military in recent years, including the development and deployment of more remote platforms and standoff weapons.
There is no need to move any US personnel or assets closer to Iran. There is no benefit to the US to move our forces closer. The in-your-face move will only benefit the Iranians. Why should we do it?