How could Trump help the Iranian people overthrow the mullahs without destroying vital infrastructure?

Hey, how about that situation in Iran, eh?  The supreme Islamic leader has ordered the IRGC and assorted junior lackeys to murder unarmed Iranians protesting in the streets.  How many?  Well the mullahs have cut off the internet, so hard to know, but some estimates are 12,000 or so.

SO two questions:  First, can Trump do anything to help the Iranian people overthrow the mullahs?  And second:  IF a military action can be identified as both helpful and likely to succeed, should it be done?  Keep in mind that as the reaction of U.S. Democrats and the Mainstream Media to our astonishingly successful capture of Maduro showed, no matter how successful any U.S. military action was, Dems and the Media would attack it as "interventionist," "undemocratic," "bullying" and so on.  And it would obviously be met with screaming outrage from the world Media and all other Islamic regimes.

Now, if you've been paying attention for the past year, you're beginning to get an idea how competent military leaders think.  We have no indication that Trump is a student of military history, but unlike the corrupt leftist sons of bitches bribem and Obozo, Trump listens to his military experts.  And they've suggested an old, well-known military tactic: misdirection.  Bribem's handlers never asked the military for options, because the communist motherfuckers in the White House were on the payroll of the Chinese communist party.  Fortunately Trump isn't a Democrat communist lackey.

Mis-directing an opponent is hardly a novel military tactic.  Students of WW2 may recall that before D-day (June 6, 1944) the Allies used all manner of deception to encourage the Nazi defenders to believe the Allied invasion would come at Calais--just 18.2 miles from England--when the invasion actually came ashore 190 miles away at Normandy, with a channel crossing of 150 miles instead of 18.  It didn't make sense--which helped it work.

For a more recent example of classic misdirection, think back to last year:  As the Islamic regime became increasingly belligerent about building an atomic bomb, the White House approved a military plan to send a flight of our powerful B-2 Stealth bombers west, to a staging base in the Pacific far closer to Iran's nuclear enrichment facilities.  As anyone could have predicted, the ENTIRE U.S. Mainstream Media reported on the launch from the U.S. base in Missouri, including the number of planes and their stated destination.  Cuz the Media always wants to be sure our enemies know everything the Media can find out.

And as those bombers sat on the ground at the staging base in the Pacific, presumably waiting for the go order, a different group flew EAST from the U.S. and destroyed Iran's nuclear enrichment sites.  See, the mullahs knew the Media would tell the world if the B-2s took off from their staging base in the Pacific, which would give the Islamic regime ten hours to get ready to shoot down the force.

*Surely* you remember that, right?  *Surely you heard the Media congratulating Trump and the U.S. Air Force on that classic, totally effective mis-direction, right?*  Because it was an operation for the history books.  (But it won't be in the history books because the Democrats publish 'em, and will ensure it doesn't happen--because it was a huge success for both the U.S. and for Trump.)

So returning to the present:  The White House announced that because a lot of our Navy ships were sitting off the coast of Venezuela, we didn't have enough assets off Iran to carry out an attack.  So the Pentagon announced that it was ordering a carrier battle group to sail from the Philippines to just 1,500 miles or so from Iran, and that it was gonna take the group seven days or so to arrive.

The Mainstream Media--which hate Trump with a passion unequaled in history--dutifully reported this.  And because all opponents of our nation have gotten used to relying on the U.S. Media to reveal any movements of U.S. forces, they're confident that no attack can be launched for a week or more.

Now: If I were a member of the JCS I would have suggested something like this:

No one with any sense would order strikes on Iran's infrastructure--electricity generating plants, water treatment, rail lines, ports, et cetera-- because all those will be needed if the regime is deposed.  So what (if anything) would the U.S. attack to be helpful?

The mullahs are kept in power by the armed troops in the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC), who have all the guns.  Take the IRGC out and the mullahs will flee.

SO...does the U.S. know the exact location of every IRGC barracks?  Of course.  Would three Tomahawk cruise missiles on each one kill almost everyone in those barracks?  Yes.

Of course the Tomahawks can't be launched until the carrier group arrives in about a week, right?

Oh wait...a couple of U.S. ballistic-missile subs--converted Ohio-class boomers--have been modified to carry cruise missiles--reportedly 154 of 'em.  (Skeptical?  Do a Net search for "Can U.S. subs carry cruise missiles?  Keep reading until you see "Ohio-class.")

Mainstream Media: "Wuh...wuh...buh...how long would it take for one of these mythical U.S. subs you claim exist to sail from its U.S. port to within range of Iranian targets?"

They're already there, cupcake.  So IF Trump decided to take out the IRGC barracks in Iran's 30 largest cities, the clever plan would be to do that before the carrier group got within a thousand miles of Iran, so the members of the IRGC would still be returning to their barracks every night, secure in the belief that any attack wouldn't be possible for another couple of days.

Just like the B-2s deployed to the Pacific staging base last year as decoys--and as Media attention was totally focused on those planes, the actual strike force was taking off and flying east to carry out the mission.

If one of the converted subs launched 90 cruise missiles, that would put three warheads on each of 30 barracks.  Hmmm....

But I don't know nuffin'.  Really.