[Goose]

I think we are crazy if we do anything more than what we are currently doing.

To be absolutely clear, you do not believe the US should execute one or more B-2 strikes on Fordow and possibly other newly identified deeply buried nuclear weapons facilities? I would prefer we do not, but not doing so has consequences. I would also much prefer we weren't in this position.
 
IMO when Israel said they were going to attack we should have made it crystal clear to them what we would do to help them and also what we would NOT do to help them. They could then have made an informed decision. Has we wished, we could have told them we wouldn't help at all, including no ordnance resupply. Under those conditions, Israel couldn't have gone ahead. I am not advocating this position, but that option had to be on the table. Similarly, if we are not going to execute the "bunker busting" activities, Israel should have fully understood that. If we are, we should have already done so. Delay helps nobody in this regard, but the associated uncertainty can easily result in bad decisions by both Iran and Israel.

 Israel's inability to "invade" Iran is I would say, pretty obvious and my comments were made with that in mind. Iran now says it will "talk" if the Israeli attacks stop.  Seems like a situation where the side that runs out of weapons and will power loses, sort of.  Regime change is Israel's most likely path to a victory of sorts.  This Foreign Affairs article discusses it: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/iran/righ...hange-iran
At the same time I have read a number of other articles whose writers propose that if the Ayatollah goes, the Iranian Army and Security Services will remain the dominant power and a new leader might well be worse than the one that left.  Since it is effectively impossible for Israel to invade and force a regime change and almost as unlikely that we will do it for them, what is the most likely endgame?  How long can the USA continue to provide munitions and anti missile support? Every missile we fire or give to Israel draws down our strategic stock and makes us less able to act elsewhere if needed.

IMO Israel's has two versions of the end game. In the worst case alternative Iran has no nuclear weapons program, no ballistic missile capability, and no effective air defense. Israel can then kill whichever leaders it doesn't like until it gets one it does. Israel can also use air power to maintain that status quo. Israel believes it can accomplish all of this without any additional US help except destroying the underground sites. If we won't do that, Israel will have to attempt it on their own. Which do we prefer?
 
The US can keep supplying dumb bombs and aircraft spare parts essentially indefinitely. Israel clearly believes it can destroy and/or absorb all of Iran's current ballistic missile stocks within a few weeks. Given what we allegedly "know", that seems possible. Therefore our participation in anti-missile activities would terminate fairly quickly. Israel will/has also bombed all the supply chain/manufacturing sites for Iranian ballistic missiles. That would cause Iran to run out of weapons first. Unfortunately for Israel that doesn't necessarily mean they will run out of will.

As we have proven time and time again, getting involved in the Middle East is easy, getting out is hard.

I would modify that a bit. We have demonstrated time and time again in the Middle East that military force often cannot accomplish our war aims. We have then persisted in attempting to use military force (or at least military presence) to accomplish those aims while fully aware it could not. No administration that has started such a military operation has been willing to admit that "successful" military action wasn't going to accomplish what the US desired. In addition those administrations had no idea how to proceed in response to that realization (except for the first Bush administration). Mechanically getting a military force out of the Middle East is fairly easy. Deciding to do it in a timely manner has been next to impossible. Even when we have successfully withdrawn, we have sometimes returned because the consequences of withdrawal were "unacceptable".

Perhaps mutual exhaustion will lead to a cease fire.

Possible. It may not be a "negotiated" cease fire and hostilities may persist. However exhaustion may lower the level of action to almost non-existent. One way that could happen is a defiant Iran with no ballistic missiles facing an Israel that has no more high-value bomb targets. Both sides would be asking "what do we do now?". One might hope at that point reason might prevail, but it is the Middle East so that is unlikely.

[Goose]

I think we are crazy if we do anything more than what we are currently doing.

To be absolutely clear, you do not believe the US should execute one or more B-2 strikes on Fordow and possibly other newly identified deeply buried nuclear weapons facilities? I would prefer we do not, but not doing so has consequences. I would also much prefer we weren't in this position.
 
IMO when Israel said they were going to attack we should have made it crystal clear to them what we would do to help them and also what we would NOT do to help them. They could then have made an informed decision. Has we wished, we could have told them we wouldn't help at all, including no ordnance resupply. Under those conditions, Israel couldn't have gone ahead. I am not advocating this position, but that option had to be on the table. Similarly, if we are not going to execute the "bunker busting" activities, Israel should have fully understood that. If we are, we should have already done so. Delay helps nobody in this regard, but the associated uncertainty can easily result in bad decisions by both Iran and Israel.

 Israel's inability to "invade" Iran is I would say, pretty obvious and my comments were made with that in mind. Iran now says it will "talk" if the Israeli attacks stop.  Seems like a situation where the side that runs out of weapons and will power loses, sort of.  Regime change is Israel's most likely path to a victory of sorts.  This Foreign Affairs article discusses it: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/iran/righ...hange-iran
At the same time I have read a number of other articles whose writers propose that if the Ayatollah goes, the Iranian Army and Security Services will remain the dominant power and a new leader might well be worse than the one that left.  Since it is effectively impossible for Israel to invade and force a regime change and almost as unlikely that we will do it for them, what is the most likely endgame?  How long can the USA continue to provide munitions and anti missile support? Every missile we fire or give to Israel draws down our strategic stock and makes us less able to act elsewhere if needed.

IMO Israel's has two versions of the end game. In the worst case alternative Iran has no nuclear weapons program, no ballistic missile capability, and no effective air defense. Israel can then kill whichever leaders it doesn't like until it gets one it does. Israel can also use air power to maintain that status quo. Israel believes it can accomplish all of this without any additional US help except destroying the underground sites. If we won't do that, Israel will have to attempt it on their own. Which do we prefer?
 
The US can keep supplying dumb bombs and aircraft spare parts essentially indefinitely. Israel clearly believes it can destroy and/or absorb all of Iran's current ballistic missile stocks within a few weeks. Given what we allegedly "know", that seems possible. Therefore our participation in anti-missile activities would terminate fairly quickly. Israel will/has also bombed all the supply chain/manufacturing sites for Iranian ballistic missiles. That would cause Iran to run out of weapons first. Unfortunately for Israel that doesn't necessarily mean they will run out of will.

As we have proven time and time again, getting involved in the Middle East is easy, getting out is hard.

I would modify that a bit. We have demonstrated time and time again in the Middle East that military force often cannot accomplish our war aims. We have then persisted in attempting to use military force (or at least military presence) to accomplish those aims while fully aware it could not. No administration that has started such a military operation has been willing to admit that "successful" military action wasn't going to accomplish what the US desired. In addition those administrations had no idea how to proceed in response to that realization (except for the first Bush administration). Mechanically getting a military force out of the Middle East is fairly easy. Deciding to do it in a timely manner has been next to impossible. Even when we have successfully withdrawn, we have sometimes returned because the consequences of withdrawal were "unacceptable".

Perhaps mutual exhaustion will lead to a cease fire.

Possible. It may not be a "negotiated" cease fire and hostilities may persist. However exhaustion may lower the level of action to almost non-existent. One way that could happen is a defiant Iran with no ballistic missiles facing an Israel that has no more high-value bomb targets. Both sides would be asking "what do we do now?". One might hope at that point reason might prevail, but it is the Middle East so that is unlikely.