[cassepipe]

Japan was on its last legs was and the US had already gone all-in with a war machine unlike anything seen before. At that point no one was going to lose elections about lost lives while invading Japan. The bombs were a time and life saving device. And the US army still had to actually occupy Japan after that (much smaller than Iran)

[Gareth321]

You may be right about the political challenges (and I'm neither arguing for or against them), I'm simply pointing out that the war was won with two bombs. Perhaps it was wise to station troops in Japan after victory, but I don't think it was necessary. Even if it were, the peacekeeping forces were far smaller and there was almost zero violence. This would be politically palatable to Americans.

[cassepipe]

Sorry I should have been more nuanced. Bombing can win conflicts but one thing is does not do is regime change.

I'd argue the occupation was necessary: The political system that led to militarism was still intact and there were still factions against surrender until the very end. It was regime change per se but a regime transformation and I don't think it would have been possible without an occupation.

[Gareth321]

I think that's fair. The leadership remained in power. However I would argue that in the case of Iran, Trump doesn't care if leaders remain in power, as long as they do what he wants. Specifically on uranium enrichment. I think he wanted to follow the Venezuela example, but this is not that.