"Iran as limited war" Topic

long back and forth with GROK about not destroying oil fields nor electrical grid. There is even a LINCOLN-TRUMP comparison for those so inclined to view with concern:

link

Here is probably the key paragraph:

That is the useful distinction for Iran. A civil war of restoration and a foreign war of unconditional surrender pull in opposite directions. The Iran campaign sits awkwardly between them. The public threats sound like 1945. The pattern of strikes sounds more like a coercive negotiation: military targets hit, export terminals mostly spared, the grid damaged and then held out as the next rung, a financial blockade preferred to a blackout. That mix only makes sense if the hoped-for ending is a deal, or a different government in the same country, rather than the destruction of the country as a going concern. It is not Lincoln's constitutional caution. There is no clause protecting the Iranian grid. It is the strategic half of his problem: how hard you can make war on a people you intend, afterward, to live with.