I guess you’re right. I was thinking a peoples army, armed by US logistics and calling in US air support.

But i guess you know more than i do

The second day of the war Israel gave everyone in Tehran a day-long oil shower. Imagine cleaning that out of your kid's hair, you're not going to overthrow the government that's shooting back.

Regime change with air invasion is unlikely.

The civilian casualties of the war is still significantly lower than the number killed by the regime (according to Amnesty International with conservative number). So while I agree that people don’t want bombing, I highly doubt that the war makes them like their oppressors. They love their country and Iran and islamic regime are not the same exactly.

The idea there was bombing to support the popular uprising that does the actual work. I think that might have been the fantasy here, too, but it seems like the window closed.

I'm not arguing that Iran has been executed well, but military force has topled MANY regimes. If you're arguing "bombs" specifically and only, the U.S. won the war with Japan by dropping just two big ones. If you'd like a more contemporary example: Libya, 2011. NATO’s campaign relied overwhelmingly on air and missile strikes, and NATO officially did not deploy a conventional foreign ground force. The regime was finished by Libyan rebel forces on the ground. This is likely the scenario Trump was hoping for.

Japan was on its last legs was and the US had already gone all-in with a war machine unlike anything seen before. At that point no one was going to lose elections about lost lives while invading Japan. The bombs were a time and life saving device. And the US army still had to actually occupy Japan after that (much smaller than Iran)

You may be right about the political challenges (and I'm neither arguing for or against them), I'm simply pointing out that the war was won with two bombs. Perhaps it was wise to station troops in Japan after victory, but I don't think it was necessary. Even if it were, the peacekeeping forces were far smaller and there was almost zero violence. This would be politically palatable to Americans.

Sorry I should have been more nuanced. Bombing can win conflicts but one thing is does not do is regime change.

I'd argue the occupation was necessary: The political system that led to militarism was still intact and there were still factions against surrender until the very end. It was regime change per se but a regime transformation and I don't think it would have been possible without an occupation.

I think that's fair. The leadership remained in power. However I would argue that in the case of Iran, Trump doesn't care if leaders remain in power, as long as they do what he wants. Specifically on uranium enrichment. I think he wanted to follow the Venezuela example, but this is not that.

Hirohito was King of Japan from 1926 to 1989.

Kangaroo Suzuki was PM from 1868 until his death in 1948.

So arguing that the atomic bomb having toppled the regime is factually wrong.

I strongly disagree. Toppling regimes doesn't only mean the nation becomes democratic. It also means obeisance to the invading force.

You can't just change the definition when it suits you Nothing was toppled. You're wrong and just too childish to accept it.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/toppling

This definition is perfectly congruent with a regime losing all autonomous power and becoming subservient to a foreign power. I would argue the U.S. "toppled" Venezuela's regime despite the existing party remaining in power. They do as they are told now.

Keep believing it buddy