There is an awful lot of smoke going up around the whole war thing these days. The USS Theodore Roosevelt is in transit to the Persian Gulf region, where it is expected to arrive late next month. Pete Hegseth popped over to Israel Monday for a quick visit to Benjamin Netanyahu, whose air force has been engaging in some rather scary-looking maneuvers around Iranian airspace. Iran's Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi penned an op-ed for the Financial Times discouraging the U.S. and company from taking another crack at his employer; Mohsen Rezaei, secretary of the Islamic Republic's Supreme National Security Council, gave comment to Drop Site News to the same effect, albeit with a lot more growling and baring of teeth. The State Department is sending folks home, and the number of troops at regional bases is being reduced. The New York Times reports that the next round of strikes is planned for after the American midterm elections

Sometimes you have to restate the obvious—dirty work, but someone has to do it: Another round of strikes is unlikely to accomplish this war's stated political goals, which themselves change on a regular basis. While never-ending, mindless destruction for its own sake has its charms, I guess, generally speaking a war is supposed to accomplish something; the "something" here has been at various times and non-exclusively the end of the Iranian nuclear program, reopening the Strait of Hormuz (which was open before the war), and regime change. The going theory among the teeming intellects downtown appears to be that yet another movement in the symphony of death, in concert with Scott Bessent's exotic economic maneuvers, will get the Iranians to cry uncle and/or provoke a change of management in Tehran.

Anything is possible, but I wouldn't hold my breath. Even if you ignore the actual public support for the Islamic Republic that this war has engendered, an indigenous uprising against the regime would likely provoke a civil war. Such a scenario won't make the Hormuz safe or secure Iranian nuclear assets; energy markets will continue to make unhappy faces and low moaning noises until there is something like a settlement. Iran is not Syria; it is simply too large for us to indulge in a decade-long luxury war there. Instability will demand continued and intensive American attention until there's a resolution. 

But, if we fall short of triggering a civil war and the regime remains securely ensconced, why would the Iranians be more tractable after yet another round of bombing? What will make this time different? (And if there is something substantively different about this approach, why didn't we try it before burning through years' worth of Patriot interceptors and compromising our force posture everywhere else in the world?)