Are US military strikes on Iran the best option?

US presidents turning to the military to resolve a crisis abroad has become a familiar pattern. Every US president in recent memory has done just this; even Barack Obama became an enthusiast for sending off armed drones to kill terrorists, and attacked Isis in Syria with a long bombing campaign; Bill Clinton was fond of the Tomahawk option; George W Bush....well, he invaded Iraq. Joe Biden approved the fatal drone attack on Osama bin Laden's successor, Ayman al-Zawahiri; Trump Part One authorised the killing by drone of Qasem Soleimani, the commander of Iran's Quds Force, the overseas-operating arm of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps; Trump Part Two has already taken military action in Venezuela, Syria, Somalia, Iran and threatened action elsewhere. Now Trump has to decide whether there is a real point in striking at Iran to stop the killings of protesters in the streets. The Iranian regime, symbolised by the US-hating Supreme Leader Ayatollah al-Khameini, looks like it is nearing the end of its time. Would a few US missile strikes help the regime on its way or give renewed determination to face up to the US, and fight back with retaliatory attacks on US forces in the Middle East, like they did many times in the past? Maybe the regime is doomed even without a push from the US. But for that to happen, the whole of the huge security apparatus in Iran would have to collapse. It's difficult to imagine that happening. So pressure from the US, military or otherwise, looks inevitable.