My belief is that we will undertake NO military action against Iran...however, the next likely scenario if we do, is the use of limited air strikes.
As for Iraq and Afghanistan, yes -- we went in full force and are nation building. However, the very next example of our involvement, we did the exact opposite -- I don't think you can discount that and arrive at your conclusion. It has to be a case by case basis, and it has to account for other factors -- ie political will etc. Following 9/11, Bush has the political will to basically do whatever he wanted -- that is gone -- and without it, it will be very hard even for someone who wants to invade Iran to bring the country along for that.
So, essentially, I arrive at the airstrike scenario as the next likely option because of the lack of political will to get involved in something like Iraq and Afghanistan right now.
Bush continually pushed Israel to take no action and Obama is doing the same thing:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204409004577159202556087074.html?mod=WSJ_hp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsTop
Why would we do this? Simple -- we will get blamed and retaliated against -- and no one wants to be drawn into that.
Additionally -- after the death count in Iraq, the President is not going to want to start a similar conflict in an election year. I have seen some reporting on Pentagon war games gaming out strike scenarios on Iran -- and in some of them, the outcome is horrible for the United States.
All of that aside -- you can get an idea if airstrikes are becoming a more viable option by looking at carrier deployments. You really need two carriers to be able to have a 24 hour on target capability -- and we recently moved a 2nd carrier to the region -- and the deployment changes seem to focus entirely on air force equipment and personnel. All of this does not speak to a sustained ground campaign -- and I have doubts we are going to take action unless in response to retaliation from Iran -- which I think will only occur should Israel strike Iran over our objections.
Well, I think if the argument is that "spending more money will ultimately collapse the country" then you can point to whatever you want that costs money and blame it as the cause.
