There's three options that I can see: a ground invasion or strikes on critical infrastructure, or both.
The most that a ground invasion could do is secure a beachhead to be able to strike the interior of Iran more easily. Maybe a temporary airfield or something. Even though the US keeps moving a few thousand troops into the area every few weeks, the idea of taking Tehran with a force that size is pure fantasy. The invasion of Iraq took 300,000 troops in 2003 and was staged across an open desert border in Kuwait to roll across more open desert. On the other hand, Iran is surrounded by mountains on all four sides. You are not going to conquer a country like that with a tenth of the force. On top of that, the military industrial complex hasn't had enough time to come up with good FPV drone countermeasures.
Alternatively, the troops could be staging for raids on Natanz or Fordow or whatever nuclear sites they hyped up recently. There is also the possibility of linking up with belligerent ethnic factions in Iran to balkanize the country.
Option 2 is what Trump threatened - kill the power and water in Iran. There is virtually nothing the Iranians can do about this. The military is obviously the best-equipped entity in Iran for utilities shortages, but the surface world will quickly descend into humanitarian chaos, and their days are numbered at that point. Naturally, the downside is also the humanitarian chaos. Millions of people will be at risk, and we will see yet another Israel/US-provoked wave of refugees.
A very small silver lining in this scenario is that Iranian chicks can actually be pretty hot. They are the ancient Aryans, after all. And that's about it for the upsides.
edit: after considering more perspectives, the Iranians do have one last card to play if we go for their critical infrastructure: destroying the desalinization plants and oil fields of the Gulf oil states. This won't save them, but it will make Trump's win into a classic Pyrrhic victory, to say the least. Oil prices will go absolutely bonkers, and so will the economy.
Aren't attacks on civilian infrastructure technically a warcrime? Sure, nobody is going to actually convict US soldiers of anything but it'll be really bad press for the midterms.
bro the elections are fake & gay, ZOG just elects the most pathetic, pedophilic puppet they can get their hands on.
They’re only warcrimes if you lose.
All the nonsense about courts and international law, this is the core truth.
If you win, you did nothing wrong.
Just stating the obvious here, but... It's funny how in war, rarely are the centres of military and government, and leadership that are targeted for attacks. You know, the groups of interest that our leaders say are the problems.
It's often civilians, public infrastructure, cultural heritage sites, and energy & resources.
Not at all. It's the logical thing to do. You destroy factories and weapons stop flowing to the front lines. You kill the leadership and they install someone new. Rebuilding manufacturing is painfully slow. Giving the next guy a promotion takes 5 minutes.
The US killed 40 some Iranian officials. Didn't stop shit. Assassinating a dozen supreme leaders has less impact on combat capability than destroying a single steel foundry unless the impending threat is enough to sway the next guy's actions.
No one goes through the extra cost of building dedicated "military infrastructure" for the sole purpose of giving potential enemies cleaner targets. I'd be willing to bet that no matter what country you're in, your military facilities share at least some upstream energy, water, and transport infrastructure with civilian facilities.
thanks for the input. i get that, and it definitely is logical to do so. although ultimately it does nothing to resolve the so-called "root cause" of the problem that the target is accused for. was this current attack really meant to liberate Iran's people from its leadership, if the consequences mainly hurt the civilians?
the way its done already, it will radicalize a new generation of Iranians in the future and the cycle will continue.
my issue with that take is: if it were really to cripple the military infrastructure despite sharing with the civilian side, then i would argue the US should've gone harder on ALL resource production: so food, internet, on top of what you already said with water, energy and transport. go for complete and utter destruction of the people. do not do it half-assed it that was the strategy we are seeing.
so to circle it back, i still find it funny and i question the point of it all if not done correctly and thoroughly from the beginning?
Is that actually in the Geneva conventions? The US flattened Iraqi powerplants in 2003.
As far as bad midterm press, the worst midterm press at this point would be still being stuck in the Strait of Hormuz come November with Iran still free to post low IQ hypereels of AI fighter jets getting shot down. Trump can just say that the plants were supplying electricity to drone factories or underground bunkers or something.
Side point but the Geneva conventions only ever apply if both sides agree and sign them. Iran may very well have done so that in this case it would apply, but going back just a few months the droning or narc boats was decried as a warcrime for similar reasons when the narcs didn't qualify for it for a list of reasons [they didn't follow].
It's one of those fun loopholes that lets you glass people from time to time and not really do anything wrong from a legal POV. Not that it stops retards wailing on about it.