Everything points to a swift and decisive end for the mullah regime.
n a recent piece for National Review, Philip Klein astutely points out a fundamental difference between a potential confrontation with Iran and the quagmire that became the Iraq War: There will be no full-scale U.S. ground invasion under President Trump.
Klein argues that with Iran’s military already crippled by sanctions and precision strikes, and Trump unwilling to commit to a major land advance, this won’t devolve into another endless occupation.
He’s right, but the analysis stops short of the full picture. A war with Iran, should it come to that amid escalating tensions, would be short, sharp, and transformative, not just because of avoided boots on the ground, but due to a confluence of strategic, economic, demographic, and diplomatic factors that simply didn’t exist in 2003.
Let’s unpack why Iran is primed for a rapid resolution, drawing lessons from Iraq’s pitfalls while highlighting America’s enhanced position today.
First, consider Trump’s doctrine: maximum pressure, minimum entanglement. Unlike the Bush administration’s ambitious nation-building in Iraq, which entangled U.S. forces in a decade-long counterinsurgency, Trump has made it crystal clear he refuses to be embroiled in protracted troop commitments.
His first term demonstrated this with the withdrawal from Afghanistan and targeted killings like that of Qasem Soleimani in 2020, which disrupted Iran’s proxy networks without escalating to occupation.
In a second term, Trump would likely authorize overwhelming air and naval power, cruise missiles, drones, and cyber operations, to decapitate the regime’s leadership and nuclear infrastructure, all while keeping American casualties low. No rebuilding mosques or policing tribal feuds; just neutralize the threat and let the chips fall. This approach echoes Reagan’s Libya strikes in 1986: Quick, punitive, and effective in deterring further aggression.
This setup doesn’t “invite” invasion; it demands a standoff strategy.
U.S. superiority in fifth-generation fighters, stealth bombers, and hypersonic weapons would neutralize these threats in days, not months. Cyber tools, honed since Stuxnet’s sabotage of Iran’s centrifuges in 2010, could shut down command-and-control without a single boot crossing the border. Iran’s terrain, mountainous and vast, further discourages occupation, favoring precision over persistence.
Allies make all the difference, too. In Iraq, the U.S. went in with a “coalition of the willing” that frayed quickly, leaving America to shoulder the burden.
Today, Trump’s Abraham Accords have forged a Sunni-Israeli axis against Iran. The UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, and Sudan normalized ties with Israel in 2020, creating a network for intelligence sharing, joint exercises, and potential basing.
Subsequent deals, like the rumored Saudi-Israeli pact under Trump’s influence, would encircle Iran with hostile neighbors. Add in European partners wary of Iranian drones in Ukraine and Asian allies such as Japan concerned about oil flows, and you have a global coalition ready for rapid action. Israel’s proven strikes on Iranian assets in Syria demonstrate how allies can handle ground elements, freeing the U.S. for strategic oversight.
Finally, don’t overlook the psychological edge. Iran’s regime thrives on bluster but crumbles under pressure; witness its restrained response to Soleimani’s death. With proxies weakened (Hezb’allah battered by recent Israeli ops, Houthis disrupted in Yemen), Tehran lacks the bandwidth for a drawn-out fight. A short war would deter future aggression, much like the Gulf War’s quick ejection of Iraq from Kuwait in 1991.
Of course, humility is warranted, as Klein notes; wars are unpredictable. But the stars align for decisiveness: A leader allergic to quagmires, an economically vulnerable foe, a restive population, mismatched militaries, and a robust alliance network.
Iran won’t be another Iraq because Trump’s administration, and, indeed, its internal and external allies have learned, adapted, and positioned themselves for victory on their, which is to say, our terms. The mullahs’ days are numbered; the question is how swiftly America acts to finally end their reign of terror.
THE ARTFUL DILETTANTE 