Take it easy, I think we're narrowing things down.

If I read this post right, you are stating that the only plausible option, assuming there even IS one at all at this point, for dealing with Iran is threatening, and perhaps eventually carrying out, a full-scale regime-change invasion like we did with Iraq and Afghanistan.

Given that assumption, my premise that threatening air action might apply enough diplomatic pressure is less plausible, and your premise that our troops are too tied up in Iraq to accomplish the needed invasion holds more water.

I think we can both agree that there is no way to accomplish a full regime change without serious ground-level military work. I think we've learned in Iraq that the "cut the head off the snake" approach that was tried at the war's beginning doesn't really get the job done, although I wonder what things would be like now if Saddam had been killed, and not just sitting in a cell waiting for developments.

I also agree that bombing campaigns alone would not have made the needed changes in Afghanistan or Iraq. Clinton tried that in Iraq with Desert Fox, with little long-term effect.

Now, if we simply threaten targeted military action to get concessions, the ideal first step in something like this IMO, the point I was making was that threatening with ground troop strikes would create just as much or as little political resistance in Iran as threatening with air war would.

On the other hand, if the threat we have to make to get results is full regime change, which makes political resistance largely irrelevant* then your statements hold up. We saw, however, that that same threat didn't seem to get Saddam to cave in.

Is that what we're left with in Iran? That nothing else will work except actually occupying yet another country? Along with the political fallout of that action in Europe, the Middle East, and the rest of the world? If true, we are indeed overextended. If not, then we still have options even with our troops working in Iraq.

It's nice to know that if we had invaded Iran instead of Iraq, you at least would have supported it. I wonder how many other Democrats and liberals would have felt the same way.

.

*Except for any possible Iranian insurgency. And off we go again...