I wanna add some stuff, again from the morals we learnt from US Foreign Policy in Perspective.
I can see their point on the US foreign policy being means driven. They have tools and they are put forward to use them even if:
- the chance of success is slim to none;
- they are sure they won't use them;
- they don't suit the job.
First as we saw at the example of Brazil the US doesn't start invasions against large countries with difficult terrain.
Afghanistan is 650K sqKm with an estimated population of 36-50 million people. Iraq is 440K sqKm, with 46 million, but the terrain is much more forgiving in the sense that it's not hilly. Compared to these Iran is 1,65 million sqKm large, 'bout three times of the average of the previous two. Population 95 million, about twice. Terrain is also difficult. It doesn't look like a country the US would invade.
Punctuated military operations are doomed to failure and not suitable for a regime change at all. Supporting internal armed oppositions isn't suited to bring regime change about. Still both are/were proposed for that reason.
The book doesn't contemplate airstrike as a possible regime change tool (although can be used in combination of a regime change tool to support the effect), but when the happening happened this year in the media analysts and propagandists speculated that the air campaign is done to cause regime change. Even tho Bibi said clearly they started them to destroy the nuclear program. Still the speculation was put forward over and over, that it might be in the background - I guess on "surely the Jew is lying" basis.