Also. Was there any advantage to boots on the ground in Afghanistan or Iraq? Tangible advantage or benefit doesn't enter into the conversation at any point.
Was there any advantage? From a PNAC standpoint, there was obviously advantage. 1) It allowed the Bush administration to move the narrative from "we were caught unawares" to "Toby Keith Approved." 2) It allowed the United States to assert hegemony over the TAPI Pipeline. 3) It allowed the United States to reshape the Middle East from a disparate patchwork of treaty states to a unified American framework of peace and prosperity. Oops, no it didn't but if you don't think that was the goal you haven't been paying attention. You can't argue that Trump will do anything for money out one side of your mouth and out the other insist that "tangible advantage or benefit doesn't enter into the conversation" out the other. It's ALL about tangible advantage or benefit. Refusing to demean yourself with empathy for your opponent's positions does not eliminate them.
There was a miscommunication of the word 'advantage' that made this convey something I didn't mean. Specifically in the second instance, I meant 'tangible advantage or benefit' for anyone other than Trump personally or whatever given foreign interest he has most lately acted in the interest of. Obviously he does things that are self serving. Regarding point 1: Do we expect retaliatory asymmetrical violence? If so, will one of those attacks be used by the media and the nashville industrial country music complex to create another Angry American moment to justify boots on the ground? We seem primed for it. 2: Good point. Less specific material reasons to want to assert that tier of control. 3: Footage of pre/post revolution is being used by right wing media right now on substack, tiktok and probably facebook and twitter, to test the waters on how does right wing america feel about supporting 'Regime change.' This makes me worried that the right wing think tanks know how to get people in the 'send my son to die in the desert' mood.
Okay, "tangible advantage or benefit for anyone other than Trump." But what tangible advantage or benefit would Trump derive from boots-on-ground in Iran? He's not a man of firm philosophical standing, but "isolationist" is something he gets called a lot more than "imperialist." There would be heavy political cost to deploying troops anywhere they aren't needed for humanitarian aims and considering how sclerotic and ineffectual the Iranian regime is, why fucking bother? Do we expect retaliation? As I said, I expected retaliation after Soleimani and it effectively never came. Shit, I think the world expected retaliation after Nimr al-Nimr and it came in the form of memes. There was a time when the Iranians were enthusiastic and skillful practitioners of terrorism but that time is clearly past. If they were gonna pop off they woulda done long since. As far as workshopping a regime change, it serves the same purpose as "bombing is good tho", something they definitely need to do considering Trump ran on isolationism. Besides which the right-wing think tanks have long been at "wall it off and it will collapse on its own" with Iran, even before the Soviet Union did exactly that (and long, LONG before Syria did exactly that). The argument is basically that the tree is about to fall anyway, why rush at it with an axe when you can sit back, crack open a Busch Light and watch it fall. Operation Enduring Freedom cost about $2.3T. Trump ain't big on numbers or statistics but he definitely listens to prices. I guarantee you he asked how much a MOAB cost.