Agreed, except for the words “endgame”, and “won”.
In fighting a war on terror, I’d go after WMD first. Then I’d deal with State Sponsors, and state sponsored safe havens, terror friendly districts, for example.
After those two categories of targets were dealt with, then lesser players, where only a portion of the government was implicated in terrorist plots, those governments would be put to a hard choice.
If they choose wrong, then the string, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, gets longer.
If not, we work together to drain the swamps, either/or.
Iran will probably be the last State Sponsor, i.e., the last major battle, but this round of war may not be decisive, just a delay to their nuke program. We may have to deal finally with Iran again at some later point, just like Osirak, ODS, and eventually OIF.
Once Iran is no longer a State Sponsor, there are still all the little fish, and eventually the individual terrorists to deal with.
I think if the mullahcracy can be brought down without a shot fired, the dominos fall much faster than if we go protracted in that battle.
We have to know what it takes to make the mullahs split the scene: money or valor? We can easily buy them off as well as kill them off; what's the best way to force exile on them? Should we give them the choice, run rich or die en place?