The US Navy or any navy can’t destroy that production from the air.

The evidence is pretty clear on that. We see that is already the case in Ukraine or with Hezbollah and Ansar Allah.

* Depose's Saddam government

Accomplished.

* Identify, isolate, and eliminate Iraqi WMDs

Failed. They were never there.

* Find, capture, and drive out terrorists from Iraq

Failed. Iraqi-based terrorism increased in the aftermath.

* Collect intelligence related to terrorist networks, and to "the global network" of WMDs

Failed. North Korea tested its first nuclear weapon in 2006, years after the invasion. The US accuses Iran of trying for them to this day. Chemical weapons were used by ISIS.

* End sanctions

Accomplished.

* Deliver humanitarian support to the Iraqi people, including the displaced

Failed. There were more displaced people due to the war than before and a higher need for humanitarian support which took years to complete.

* Secure Iraq's oil fields and resources, "which belong to the Iraqi people"

Accomplished. Somewhat, US and UK based companies, plus China, now runs a lot of their oil fields. Iraqi GDP per capita is one of the lowest in the region.

* Help the Iraqi people "create conditions for a transition to a representative self-government"

Arguable. Parts of the country want to secede and have armed groups. Representation and turnout is not amazing, but I guess not even in Western countries it is.

They can't even do that in their own bases. Most of US defenses have been severely overestimated due to propaganda. They hadn't been tested and when they were they've shown themselves lacking.

Russia has literally taken over the industrial heart of Ukraine in the east and southeast regions. With boots on the ground, tanks, everything. They claim it as their land. And yet they can't stop Ukraine from building drones.

That's far more than the US/Israel have done or are willing to do. It's extremely realistic that they do not have the capacity to destroy Iran's drone making capabilities, ever.

Most of the Iranian drones are quite sophisticated for what they need to do. On a pinch they could replace many of the non-critical components for cheaper parts. They don't need composite materials if they were simply trying to outproduce. Meaning their production facilities could be much simpler than they are currently and still sustain enough output to matter.

That's not how revenue works at all.

A trillion dollars worth of damage seems possible if spread over some years for some countries in the Gulf where shutting down a desalination plant would cause depopulation.

They can afford to try to destroy Iran's offensive capabilities because in-between countries allow their airspace to be used.

Wars are usually between neighbors. If a neighbor has a huge stockpile of drones they can launch a first salvo that'll overwhelm whatever defensive capabilities the other country has before they even get to the point of destroying launchers/manufacturing.

Threats of massive drones strikes are the closest deterrent a country can get to nuclear weapons without developing nuclear weapons. If Iran had 5 million drones instead of 50 thousand this war wouldn't even be happening.

What most countries don't have is, for lack of a better term, the resolve Iran has shown. Venezuela could have built drones and resisted just the same, but it's internally divided enough that it was possible to strike a deal with an inside faction and have a coup from within.

Russia has not been able to improve AA capabilities to the point where it's "safe", for any definition of the word, neither has Israel. Israel and Gulf states often tout over 90% interception rate yet it's really at the mercy of Iran to not target their most vulnerable sites. If Iran was routinely targeting desalination plants and refineries it wouldn't matter if it was 99%: one hit is all it takes. Similarly Russia cannot keep Ukraine from targeting their oil infrastructure.

Air defenses need to be 100% to prevent physical, economic and moral damage. That is an impossibility.

There are plenty of simple solutions to real problems whose only blocker is upsetting the status quo. "We have no housing...let's build more housing" is, in fact, a very simple solution. That it doesn't happen has nothing to do with it the solution itself.

I understand and even respect when someone says "I'm American so I wish to maintain the status quo where the US can undercut other nations but they can't undercut us". But if there's some rose tinted view of how the US is actually the morally aggrieved one, I just can't bear it.