> 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.