[vrganj]

None of this is relevant, because you still incorrectly assume the US is the one coming at this from a position of strength and capable of extracting concessions.

The world economy, the oil price, the reality in Hormuz and the Iranian regime disagree with you. None of what you propose is capable of changing this.

If the US were to bomb neighborhoods, it would strengthen the resolve of Iranians. Hard power is not an effective solution for the problem the US created.

The inquisition parallel is somewhat apt, but more accurate would be the crusades. Christians took the risk of death because of their religious beliefs, the same is the case here.

[DoctorOetker]

Lets take a step back: the reason governments sponsor things like basic science research, solar panel development, space projects etc. Is because they are high risk and capital intensive. The reason industry doesn't do it is because it is too long term. The economy mostly concerns itself with short term incentives and threats. That the world economy votes economically to let Iran be, is just short term financial security, it ignores the threats that Iran poses.

Obviously lots of possibilities exist, for example in the most absurdist scenario, the US demands that Iran evacuates, and announces nuclear carpet bombing plenty ahead of time. Likely? No. Possible? Yes. Iran can not do the same (yet), and the US would like to keep it that way, they don't want another North Korea. They understand the long term price. If other nations refuse to drop their fossil fuel habits, they can either pay the premium price (directly or indirectly by helping secure the Strait of Hormuz) or drop their fossil fuel habits. It's unsustainable in the long run anyway...

[vrganj]

What's wrong with another North Korea? They've been much better behaved on the global stage than the US has been. I'd much rather have another North Korea than any state after America's image.

I also strongly disagree with you equating war crimes and R&D.