Salar jan, the reason the USA has not launched a military attack on Iranian nuclear infrastructure is because it simply has no public support. Even among the warmongers in the congress it does not have the support especially after 2 exhausting wars that was waged in the name of American democracy. So it has nothing to do with the fierce ''Iranian retaliation'' that will follow (which will be contained by the Americans any way) but because of internal politics in the USA. They have the strongest military force in the world and when they launch an attack, Iranian infrastructure, result of hundreds of years of hard labour by Iranians, will be lost in just 48-72 hours (incase of a massive brutal shock and awe campaign). Sure, Iran will lay waste to some American bases in Iraq,Afghanistan etc but that is far, far from delivering a fatal blow to uncle Sam. The bottom line is... USA can badly damage Iran in Iran... Iran never can reach mainland USA. That is why people are yelling for Iran to get nukes + ICBM.
My friend, please let me explain why in my view this largely amounts to a semantic misconception.
Indeed, the purely military dimension of a conflict never exists in a vacuum and can never be appreciated in such an isolated manner. The military reality of war is
always inextricably and inherently linked with its political-social dimension.
These two dimensions, in the real world, are totally inseparable from one another. Any analysis contemplating war from the sole technical-military prism and discussing potential scenarios from that exclusive perspective, is flawed because it is disconnected from the actual reality of human interactions.
In other words, the US "can" destroy Iran using its military power, yes. In such a fictitious, seemingly theoretical but actually erroneous understanding of things, the US "can" in fact succesfully wage war on all non-nuclear powers of the world and subjugate and annex them, merely because its on-paper military might is superior to those other countries by a considerable margin. Except that reality this is simply not how things work, and in fact never did.
The potential outcome of wars can never be correctly apprehended on the mere basis of technical side-by-side comparisons of the respective belligerents' military equipments. Even taking into account human warfighting criteria - troop training, tactics, morale etc, in other words how well a military can use the technologies at its disposal, will not be enough.
Because for any sort of simulation to make sense, one must always take into account the political dimension of war, as well as the way in which it interacts with military-technical parameters.
But there's more: the fact of the matter is that political realities trump military ones. It is in the nature of things that the political framework will supplant and overdetermine the sheer destructive power of weapons technologies as much as the prowess of their employment. In other terms, military affairs ensue from politics - not the other way around.
If you are interested in the subject and in case you haven't done so already, I would strongly recommend reading the seminal classic
On War, authored by early 19th century military theorist and high-ranking Prussian officer Carl von Clausewitz. Clausewitz sets out to highlight the aforementioned aspects, and does so in contrast to earlier publications from authors such as Antoine-Henri Jomini, whose way of looking at war was still too restrictedly technical, material and detached from the academic discipline of humanities.
In his book, Clausewitz offers a dialectical definition of war around two propositions that have become canonical:
1)
"War is ... an act of force to compel our enemy to do our will."
It can be noted that this is almost identical to the widespread generic definition of the concept of power in political studies, except that the exercice of power will not restrict itself to acts of force but will include other means (such as persuasion, transaction and so on).
2)
"War is merely the continuation of politics with other means."
This is truly critical to understand.
Applied to our present topic of discussion, it means that a theoretical aggression launched by the US regime against Iran, like any other war effort, will inevitably:
* Aim to satisfy a predetermined set of defined political objectives.
* Keep being subjected at all times to factors stemming from the domestic and international political contexts in which such a military aggression would play out. Including the political cost / benefit analysis. Because by definition, it is politics that determines whether or not and in which way to wage war.
Which is to say that the political, financial and human-psychological cost Iranian retaliation is expected to impose on the aggressor, constitutes deterrence in and by itself, because said aggressor's military calculations are completely inseparable from its political calculations. Indeed, that is what war is all about, as demonstrated by von Clausewitz.
So yes, the fact that the US regime is being deterred from striking Iran, is a direct consequence of the Iranian retaliation which would follow, because it is precisely this Iranian retaliation that is going to generate the sort of political (and economical) cost that Washington deems unbearable.
Neither Saddam's Iraq, nor Gaddafi's Libya, nor president Assad's Syria were capable of making aggression as costly for the west, because their military doctrine, as well as the type and amount of weaponry they developed or equipped themselves with, were simply either insufficient or inadequate to cause as much damage on the aggressor and to compromise its military operations to the same extent. Praise must go not to luck, but to correct planning by Iranian authorities, whose asymmetric doctrine is best suited to inflict the greatest possible political cost on attacking US forces using the comparatively limited resources at Iran's disposal.
And since the goal pursued by the initiator of conflict is always ultimately a political one, if the political cost associated with such a military operation becomes prohibitive due to the ability of the targeted nation to defend itself, the the potential aggressor will forego any such assault, since at the end of the day, the side that starts a conflict, in order to go ahead must always consider the political cost / benefit analysis of such an undertaking as favorable. If it doesn't, then no aggression will be launched.
Now America's current threshold for political, economic and human costs deriving from very large scale overseas military operations is not simply circumstantial nor does it result solely from fatigue consecutive to other such conflicts started recently (in fact, most of the newer ones, launched in the past decade, have not necessitated massive amounts of boots on the ground - any war on Iran however would, since Iran can escalate in such a manner as to force them to either give up, or be coerced into dispatching important numbers of ground troops). Much rather, this relatively low tolerance for casualties and costs in the wet has far deeper social-cultural roots, and is not going to be reversed anytime soon - not in two years, not in ten years, and probably not in the next fifty years either. So from that point of view as well, Iran is safe.
That said, on the purely technical-military level, I would tend to take issue with certain particular points mentioned in the above quote. For example, I do not believe in the ability of the US to contain massive Iranian counter-strikes using ballistic and cruise missiles. Their missile defences and preemptive strike capabilities simply do not suffice to overwhelm Iran's huge and super-survivable arsenal. I also don't believe the US will have the means to destroy Iran's incredibly vast infrasructure in a matter of 48-72 hours, given that Iran is going to deny them the use of close-by air bases and of the Persian Gulf and Sea of Oman, forcing them to base their aircraft further away, which in turn will decrease their payloads, their useful range for operations over Iran etc.
You speak of delivering a fatal blow to the US... however, in order to deter the US from engaging in a military aggression against Iran, Iran does not need to be able to deliver a fatal blow to the regime in Washington. While this would constitute an added ability and give Iran other options, it is not an absolute necessity if the objective is to avert military aggression by the US. The mere capability to impose a high enough political cost on the aggressor, is enough to deter the latter from launching overt strikes on Iran.
As for Iran not being able to reach American mainland: not only does the IR have the know how to manufacture ICBM's, but the fact that the zionist regime is fully within reach of Iranian and regionwide allied missile forces, coupled with the systemic and deep subservience of the US regime to Tel Aviv, this is practically as good as being able to deliver massive hits to US territory proper.
Let's not forget that successive US administrations on both sides of the political divide have systematically consisted of Isra"el"-firsters. Here are some statements made by Biden in relevant contexts:
"
The truth is that Jewish heritage, Jewish culture, Jewish values are such an essential part of who we are that it’s fair to say that Jewish heritage is American heritage."
Vice President Joe Biden said at a Jewish American Heritage Month reception that American and Jewish cultures are intertwined.
jewishjournal.com
"
If there were not an Israel, we would have to invent one to make sure our interests were preserved ... America’s support for Israel’s security is unshakable, period."
The US would thus never put the security and viability of the zionist project at risk. Project that is inherently fragile, given its extremely reduced geographical dimensions, that make it so much easier for Iran to strike at directly.