Let us assume that President Trump “fails” in his attack on Iran. Say he limits the U.S. (or as Iran would have it, the “Great Satan”) to an air war against that country. Perhaps because he fears that the Democrats, and even some weak MAGAites, will descend into apoplexy if he commits to any U.S. boots on the ground in that unhappy country, he resists that move. His junior partner, Israel (the “Little Satan,” if you will), offers to conduct its own ground invasion of Iran. The president declines their offer (make no mistake: he is in charge of them, not the other way around, as conspiracy theorists would have it). Even the Kurds, let us say, make this offer. He again refuses.

Trump then takes his armada, tail between his legs, back to where it was before he summoned it to Persia. He ignores the U.S. experience in Japan from 1945 and concludes that air wars cannot foment regime change. Numerous critics have made this charge, and finally, he accepts it.

He goes home, and the murderous Iranian regime remains in power. But they have no more ships in their navy; no more rocket launchers; no more ordinance with which to fill their drones; and no more drones, either. Their nuclear facilities have been pulverized. Contrary to the situation that prevailed after Obama’s Iran Deal, the Iranians have no wherewithal to spread to their proxies.

Would this “failure” be a good thing or not? Obviously the former. When the head of the monster is cut off, its claws cease to operate. However, when the demon suffers an almost fatal blow, as under our present assumptions, its limbs hardly function. Under these worst-case assumptions, Hamas will have lost its leader; Hezbollah its mentor; the Houthis their guide and supporter. All three will be paralyzed, if not eliminated.

As Casey Stengel cautioned, however, it is difficult to make predictions, particularly about the future. So far, we have been contemplating just about the worst-case scenario imaginable. What are some other possibilities?

One is that this aerial bombardment will indeed lead to regime change. Donald Trump will make an “offer they cannot refuse” to members of the Revolutionary Guard: rebel against maniacal overlords and be guaranteed a place of honor in the next Persian administration. Alternatively, be a good follower of the Ayatollah, and suffer the same fate meted out at the Nuremberg Trials to the “good Nazis” who followed orders.

It is exceedingly unlikely that massive protests by the populace will bring down the present administration. By and large, the people are unarmed, thanks to strict gun control. And the present regime has acted with massive savagery in response to previous protests. A coup d’etat by the citizenry is unlikely to succeed. Governmental change will probably not emanate from that source. But rebellion from more civilized Persian troops cannot be dismissed as easily.

There is yet another consideration that must be brought into the mix. Iran has by no means limited its bombardment to Israel and U.S. installations in the Middle East. These countries, too, have been subjected to missile and drone attacks: Saudi Arabia, UAE, Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, and Jordan. Before Trump’s interdiction of Iran, there was tension between these Arab nations and Persia. One wonders why Iran would seek additional enemies besides the Big and Small Satans. In any case, this phenomenon serves yet another possibility: boots on the ground in Iran might be supplied by any and/or all of these new victims of that country’s brutalization.

So far, it must be conceded, the aerial war brought to Iran by the U.S. and Israel has not forced any regime change. However, as the destruction of Iran continues apace, that outcome becomes increasingly likely. The Iranian military is fully aware of the devastation imposed upon Gaza, mainly from the air. This can be expected to make them sit up and take notice. Do even the most loyal of Iranian troops really want their country to be Gaza-ized?  Only time will tell.