The pandora box here is that if the Iranian regime is not removed or severely reformed - they will try to race towards acquiring nuclear weapons. Which was the main reason for attacking them in the first place. Therefore the US and Israel either decisively defeat and degrade the current regime or they risk repeating this type of operation every 6-12 months for the foreseeable future. That is likely much more costly than going "all in" right now.
The military and industrial base of Iran is getting severely degraded and if this continues for many more weeks their "resistance" (which amounts to sending drones and a few ballistic missiles daily nowadays) will likely crumble further.
However not sure if you can force a regime change due to that. Unlikely. In fact a quicker way to do that, other than a land invasion, would be to destroy their oil and gas infrastructure (make the regime bankrupt) while at the same time disrupt any rebuilding attempts. This somewhat controversial tactic would no doubt remove the regime eventually.
The problem is that the regional oil and gas infrastructure would be at risk of damage/destruction but as I wrote, unlike Iran, KSA/GCC (7 trillion USD in sovereign wealth funds alone - 10-15 times larger economies, no sanctions and open economic relations with the entire world) can rebuild the oil and gas infrastructure rather quickly.
However none of the above would prevent a global financial crisis.
So as I see it there are 3 short-term steps that the US can take.
1) Continue the current bombing raids to further degrade Iran's military (their offensive power is limited to drones and a few ballistic missiles launched on a daily basis), industrial base (already occurring) and economy which is already in shatters.
2) Escalate further if talks do not reach the desired effect by destroying their oil and gas infrastructure and basically destroy the main livelihood of the regime.
3) Or launch a land invasion of southern parts of Iran in order to control the Strait of Hormuz, their oil and gas installations and use this fact in the negotiation for the regime's surrender in some form or another.
Not sure if there are ofter realistic possibilities?
My perspective. Folks here in the US who are foreign policy hawks and don't really care about which party is in power (that's not me) are feeling very good how the war is going. Yes this war so far is more successful than Desert Storm and 2003 war (not talking about occupation/rebuilding) when it comes to military operations. Those folks see the high gas prices and slowing of economy due to war and consequences as a temporary discomfort. Now those who are republican and MAGA are right now very nervous how this is going to affect the mid-term elections due to gas prices and economic slowdown but in the military operations they are feeling well BUT it is taking a bit longer for their comfort.
I didn't vote for Orangeman but agreed with his no new war policy, border, immigration, economic and tariff policy. 2026 was supposed to be an economic boom because of the bill they passed... that's pretty much over. Could Orangeman have waited after elections absolutely but for some reason he decided early 2026 was the year of foreign policy hawking.
My opinion.
Now why did he attack Iran again after hitting the nuke facilities last year.... because the strike wasn't as successful as they claimed. It was a fail. So when protest in Iran broke out he used the crackdown of Iranians as an excuse to hit Iran again but this time he wanted a defanging strike and they have been very successful at that but it will very likely cost his political party and maybe even his presidency depending if dems win both houses and successfully impeach him that is if dems think JD Vance is a better replacement which he is not in fact I think he is worse for dems and likely seek retribution on dems through DOJ.
The strikes on their nuclear facilities in June 2025 were never going to "remove the nuclear threat". It was always a temporary destruction of facilities. The local knowledge, scientists (who have shared their knowledge with fellow professors and students alike) and other nuclear-related infrastructure remained intact. As did the enriched uranium which we do not know the status of. Was it removed before the attack or is it buried deep in the mountain debris and unlikely to be recovered?
This whole thing should have been dealt with decades ago when Iran had nothing - not even missiles let alone drones. Somehow the US did nothing and was more bothered about Iraq (1991 and 2003), Libya, Afghanistan and what not.
Same thing with North Korea. I know that Russia and China sits next door but somehow the US allowed North Korea to acquire nuclear weapons without much of a fuss - other than the existing sanctions. Whether Russia or China helped North Korea (likely) or not you have many Russia and Chinese analysts saying that this was a wrong policy and they would prefer a non-nuclear armed North Korea that they could easily influence fully.
EDIT: I did not even mention the obvious - namely that should Iran ever acquire nuclear weapons you will have a nuclear arms race in the Middle East with several countries following suit. That would be the nightmare of Israel.
none is criticizing America ? ....this was not started at the impulse of the potus.... there is lots of planning and lots of countries behind it ....it won't be anything like Iraq or Afghanistan... pressure from the air will do it's job....Iran has to succumb one way or the other , standing for ummah and Palestine slogans are not going to cut ... America is not backing off without getting the desired results..... keep in mind , no country in the world wants to see a nuclear Iran... everyone is happy sitting on the moral high grounds and letting America and Israel do the dirty work.
