https://www.foxnews.com/video/6402117274112
The key to US success in Iran is a good analysis of what the "end game" looks like.
When the ancient Greeks, in the era of Alexander the Great, conquered (or, more accurately, "tamed") Afghanistan over two millenia ago, they engineered terraces in the hilly land, to support growing crops. This they used for a few generations, then the land largely went fallow. Afghanistan hasn't been peaceful long enough for the people to use the terraces as extensively as the ancient Greeks built them.
We have similar contemplations with Iran. Trump has to realistically decide what the final result there should look like. The US press is quickly hopping on the story that Iran's ability to quickly rebuild facilities that the US destroys is necessarily a bad thing. Therefore, the US is failing at its task of winning the war. But what should success look like? If we look at prepackaged definitions of success, they may be right. But are they?
The best comparisons with Iran are from modern history. Iran has had two generations for the religious crazies to indoctrinate their people. That is a long time. The Nazis had the better part of one generation for this, and were wildly successful at it. Joseph Stalin has had since the 1930s to infiltrate British and American intelligence services, and, likewise, was tremendously successful at it. The very existence of the problem is only just starting to emerge.
At issue is just who emerges as the rulers in Iran after the war. This isn't a matter of who should win, it is who is most likely to win. Given the choice of possible outcomes, how does the US enhance the chances for a good possibility emerging?
Good luck, the unpredictable, has a large effect on this. In World War II, weather had more of an effect on its outcome than some of the best, and worst, military plans. Popular board games traditionally use a set of dice as being integral to the game, to handle probability. Your game strategy may be genius or foolish, but the laws of probability, in the roll of the dice, will be the determinant.
At issue in Iran is whether the religious mullahs or the civilian society emerge as the rulers in Iran. All other things being equal, in my opinion there's a 50-50 chance for either. But all other things aren't equal. History favors the current rulers, in this case being the mullahs. The US would have to go push a de-Nazification-style program to get rid of them. The cancer has gone too far.
My favorite approach is with propaganda. Turn the mullahs "dancing virgins" vision of the afterlife after martyrdom into one of dancing homos getting ready to butt-fuck you after death. This would only appeal to the small minority of gay people. But any propaganda approach takes time, and the mullahs are a few generations ahead of the game.
For starters, let's neutralize existing mullah propaganda. The sword cuts both ways. The mullahs, afraid of competitive ideas, have already suppressed much of their local internet. Let's build upon their success, and make it difficult for the mullahs to broadcast their own propaganda.
In World War II, much of the US effort was to convert post war Germany into being pasture land for cows. A more realistic goal was achieved through de-Nazification. The Communists jumped upon this program, and the world has yet to sufficiently cope with it.
I believe in the the pendulum view of history. When the pendulum swings too far in one direction, it changes direction and swings in the other direction. This I see happening already, and we have to stay out of the path of the pendulum swing.
For Trump, it's a matter of bombing Iran back to the Stone Age, if the mullahs succeed, or providing for the previously interrupted modern civil society to emerge. I am of the opinion that, whoever ultimately succeeds in Iran, that Iran has to have at least a taste of the Stone Age if they are ever to rid themselves of the mullahs.
Rather than over commit to the final victors, I favor the coronization of the former Shah's son as leader of Iran as an intermediate step. The difficulty is keeping him alive in Iran. He will be more of a marked man from the mullahs, than Trump being a marked man from the US's Deep State. But the US Deep State has to maintain a public image of invisibility, which is probably opposite of the Iranian mullah's goals.
And, to contemplate matters, it's not just having goals for Iran. It's providing for implementing plans B or C, if the necessity dictates.
In his first term, the Deep State played rope-a-dope with Trump. Now that Trump understands the Deep State, Trump is starting to take charge.
I previously made an allusion to the Battle of the Bulge. I soon regretted it. The public perception of the Battle is largely formed from mythology perpetuated by American newspapers. No lasting harm done. People can think what they want. But the most "informed" commentary about the Battle is also the most ignorant. The Allied success in the Battle is largely due to putting William Roberts in effective charge of it.
Roberts was the era expert on battle tactics, and trained a whole generation of World War II generals in tactics, everyone from Eisenhower to Patton. The US pulled the #1 guy in charge of the 101st Airborne to a useless conference in Washington, to let their #2 guy defer to Roberts. The person of Roberts was the equivalent of having a few extra army divisions for use in the Battle. The US gave out many medals for the Battle, the highest being the silver star. It is no accident that the very first silver star awarded for the battle was to Roberts.
Unfortunately, there is no current William Roberts to guide us on Iran. The closest I could find is Lisa Daftari. I am not aware of her current opinions on the matter, but she is definitely someone who matters.