If that strategy was the only strategy, then it would have already been done, there would be no desire for diplomatic resolution here. Optics-wise, banking on social unrest has failed, and if the US escalates it to a Dresden situation then the Gulf States will have their own critical services attacked in reprisal. Part of the reason why we're even seeing negotiations is because the US has no free win button. The escalation ladder is still wide open for both sides.

It doesn't take a four star general to understand why a ground invasion sucks. By the time Marines land in Bandar Abbas, the HEU is halfway to an underground vault in Magnitogorsk. The remaining job of securing UF6 rubble, locating spare centrifuges and dismantling their enrichment loop is pointless. There is no option to "remove the nuclear material" that reasonably deters Iran from attaining nuclear weapons. The JCPOA was a more workable framework than this blockade has proven to be.

▲

tristanj a day ago | parent [-]

Lots of issues

> If that strategy was the only strategy, then it would have already been done

No, it's not done because the US is averse to combat losses. The US will win a ground war against Iran, there's no question here. But it will do so at significant loss, in the thousands of lives.

Trump is politically savvy enough to not desire this option.

> banking on social unrest has failed

The social unrest strategy was never implemented. It was hinted at happening, Iranians were told to wait until told to resume protesting, but the green light was never given.

> By the time Marines land in Bandar Abbas

The marines can't land at Bandar Abbas, a cursory look at the geography shows it makes no sense to land here; a ground invasion would start from Pakistan or Iraq.

> the HEU is halfway to an underground vault in Magnitogorsk.

Why would Iran voluntarily give up its Uranium stockpiles to Russia? There is no strategic benefit.

> The remaining job of securing UF6 rubble, locating spare centrifuges and dismantling their enrichment loop is pointless.

False, it is not possible to build a nuclear weapon without a significant amount of accompanying infrastructure; there is enormous strategic value to destroying Iran's nuclear infrastructure.

> There is no option to "remove the nuclear material" that reasonably deters Iran from attaining nuclear weapons.

False, doing so would set back the Iranian nuclear program by ten to twenty years; which is long enough for another president to revisit the issue.

While in the country, the US would also dismantle the Iranian missile stockpile, destroying thousands of missiles that could target neighboring countries.

And JCPOA has its own issues, JCPOA was fundamentally flawed, it never addressed the Iranian missile problem, which is equally as large an issue as the Iranian nuclear problem.

	▲	bigyabai a day ago \| parent [-]
		> Trump is politically savvy enough to not desire this option. Every single preceding president before him is "politically savvy" enough to not desire it. Trump is unique in that he is actively considering it, when Iran does not legitimately threaten the United States with their nuclear weapons or ballistic missile program. Regardless of how you feel, the allegations of this being a proxy war are hard to write off. > The social unrest strategy was never implemented. It was certainly implemented at least once, the Mossad admit to abetting the protests in Tehran. The effectiveness of this strategy is called into question now that many of those high-profile dissidents are jailed or dead. And we know for a fact that the Kurds want Trump to pound sand, so they're not some sort of ace-up-the-sleeve as many expected. > The marines can't land at Bandar Abbas That wasn't the point I'm making. How will the US amass troops for any invasion without triggering flight risk for the HEU? > Why would Iran voluntarily give up its Uranium stockpiles to Russia? Because they've already done it once before? https://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/29/world/middleeast/iran-han... > it is not possible to build a nuclear weapon without a significant amount of accompanying infrastructure Like the tens-of-thousands of centrifuges that Iran manufactures domestically? I don't think the US can stop them from building those without some form of diplomatic understanding. They can tear up their underground facilities, but those can also be rebuilt around shorter cascade loops and simpler, weapons-oriented enrichment. > doing so would set back the Iranian nuclear program by ten to twenty years I do not see any citation or explanation for this. It might set back parts of their civilian program, but it wouldn't prevent them from developing their HEU into a dirty-bomb style of weapon. > While in the country, the US would also dismantle the Iranian missile stockpile > it never addressed the Iranian missile problem That's Israel's issue. Iran has not targeted the continental United States once, nor do they have any apparent intention to. Iran has domestic solid fuel production, metallurgists and steel presses that all have to be removed, which is a huge undertaking that doesn't prevent them from making more. Simple MLRS style rocket artillery can be made out of scrap, in an invasion scenario it wouldn't prevent Iran from building and deploying new missiles. It's very easy for the United States to document and enforce a diplomatic solution to Iran's missile attacks, if the goal is stopping them. The JCPOA did not include missiles because it's a separate issue altogether - this would have been an opportunity for Trump to find a politically savvy solution to this, but now we're creeping towards a forever war.