On the other hand we could approach from maintenance intervention angle.
In this case the US would intervene not against Iran, but on behalf of Israel. Problem with this: intervention is about taking over some function from the regime to keep the regime "alive". What could take over the US in this case? The military? And with Israel, it's always more like the tail wags the dog situation. Neeway.
As a summary maintenance intervention tools can be fit in these five categories.
1. emergency economic aid, mostly in the form of emergency loans and advice;
2. emergency covert political aid, mostly in the form of propaganda, material assistance to political parties, and encouragement of coups and insurrections;
3. emergency military aid;
4. U.S. ground troops;
5. proxy military forces (perhaps aided by U.S. air power).
Lots of actual maintenance intervention situations which don't fit, like jettisoning the president (in this case PM), or "Incompetent clients: basket cases". But let's list and see.
Emergency economic assistance.
I'm sure the US does that. Although Israel is rich, moar money can never hurt. Some monetary support surely on its way.
Emergency covert political assistance
Now losing the regime in some political way like via election isn't possible since whoever would came to power, Israel would still be a client to the US. On the other hand keeping Netanyahu in power would ensure that no moderate, dove-ish government could step back from this thrashing they are trying to give they are giving to Iran.
Jettisoning the president and Losing the client
No.
Emergency military aid and advisers
This is possible. Giving everything but ground combat troops. Do bombers count as advisors? 
Now when combat troops are involved see these  >>/54272/ ain't much fits. This would need Israel to be in ground combat.
The rest is when the US stops the intervention, and when they have to intervene against the leader to keep the regime. The situations just don't fit.