sfrcook:

Also please assume that we are starting from zero, ie the invasion of Iraq has not yet occurred and ITS costs have not been incurred. Merely inquiring what they would be willing to tolerate for the benefit of having an Iran that is nuclear weapon free and consensually governed and a nominal ally?
————————————

I apologize for not being more civil. I am beating my head against a wall in another forum. Transference.

Considering that the root cause of our problems is Soviet style support of our enemies by Russia, wouldn’t the real cost be the cost of attaining a free and consensually governed Russia?

I think the Iraq effort was worth the cost. Putin was forced to make his Georgia move to protect the other pieces on the board. That was just a little push. Reminds me of Soviet Naval ships ramming US Navy ships during the cold war. “Man on man” coverage it would be called in basketball.

The answer has been posited above by Mark.

Palin: Drive down price of oil. (Using oil as an economic weapon).
McCain: Appropriate use of military force.

This combination seems to fit the lessons learned from the Surge and the Cold War.

Back to the original assumption. Do all wars need to be fought in the cookie cutter style described?

No. Consider Afghansistan I and the current operation in Georgia.