America Can’t Bomb Iran Out of 

The phrase “America Can’t Bomb Iran Out of…” typically refers to the idea that military action alone is unlikely to permanently eliminate Iran’s nuclear program or force a regime change that aligns with U.S. interests.

Here’s a breakdown of why this perspective is commonly held:

Dispersed and Hardened Nuclear Program: Iran has strategically developed a nuclear program with facilities that are dispersed and deeply buried underground, making them extremely difficult to destroy completely through airstrikes. Sites like Fordow are designed to withstand significant conventional attacks. Even if heavily damaged, Iran possesses the indigenous expertise to rebuild.
Increased Resolve to Pursue Nuclear Weapons: Many analysts argue that military strikes, rather than deterring Iran, could actually strengthen its resolve to acquire nuclear weapons as a means of self-defense and deterrence against future attacks. This was observed after some historical counter-proliferation strikes, which sometimes led to accelerated programs.
Risk of Regional Escalation: Any significant military action against Iran carries a high risk of triggering a wider regional conflict. Iran has a network of proxy forces (like Hezbollah, Houthis, etc.) that could retaliate against U.S. assets, allies, and interests across the Middle East. This could destabilize an already volatile region.
Limited Effectiveness of Military Action: While strikes might set back Iran’s nuclear program temporarily, they are unlikely to eliminate it entirely. Experts suggest that military force can delay and disrupt, but not permanently dismantle, a nuclear program, especially one as advanced and resilient as Iran’s.
Preference for Diplomacy: For many U.S. administrations, both Republican and Democratic, negotiations and diplomatic solutions have been considered preferable to military force in addressing the Iranian nuclear challenge. Diplomacy offers a chance for verifiable, long-term solutions that military action cannot guarantee.
Consequences of Regime Change: Even if military action were aimed at regime change, there’s no guarantee that a subsequent government would be more favorable to U.S. interests or would abandon nuclear ambitions. The outcome could be unpredictable and potentially worse.
In essence, the argument “America Can’t Bomb Iran Out of…” highlights the belief that a military-first approach is fraught with challenges, risks, and uncertain outcomes, and that a lasting resolution requires a more comprehensive strategy, likely involving significant diplomatic engagement.