The tecniques that lay waste are cheaper and faster than discriminating methods.
Mass production of dumb bombs, mass delivery and massive colateral damage would lay Iran low quickly.
Would have worked in Iran too, their climate and infrastructure would make firebombing very effective and the results incredably cruel and hard to recover from.
Iran is much more vunerable than Iraq.
But,
If we break it have we bought it?
Defeating the government of Iraq was not difficult nor expensive, Iran is not better prepared in any respect.
But,
Managing the result has been incredably expensive, while knocking Saddam over caused us hundreds of casualtys, occupying ,repairing has cost us thousands.
I think that a concentrated campaign could ruin Iran's ability to resist in a few hours, not a full day.
But then could we afford to carry our own victims?
No I don't think so, we would be stuck with just observing their rot.
This won't happen untill we are truly desprate, perhaps never, none of us should want it.
But none of our friends or critics should think it can't happen, our enemys shouldn't think that their success depends on our fear.
Rather, the continued habitability and civilisation of their enemy citys and territorys depends on our desire for a good result , if we learn to fear enough that we no longer care we can amd might create Hell on Earth.
This is our worst alternative, not loosing , but winning so ugly.
Isreal is another question, I don't think they can mount as heavy a barrage as we could , but they might be more likly to strike hard and never repair anything, in Isreal the fear is closer and the possibility of being on the loosing end of hell on earth is less unlikly.