NonCredibleDefense

I acknowledge that nationalism (and the accompanying phenomenon of mass conscription) have changed the nature of warfare, but I don't think that that is as much a deciding factor in these circumstances as you apparently do. The Iranian people could be mobilized for war despite the odds if the Iranian government chose to do so, but the government itself can still be intimidated. (And, in the conflict you referenced in the meme, it was in fact an act of intimidation by the USA which ended that war.)

However, my more central disagreement with you is that I think that this bombing should be thought of as the start of a war rather than as an alternative to war. Iran might choose to make the war very brief by negotiating a surrender before further military action takes place, or Trump may be foolish enough to have started a war he does not intend to actually fight if Iran does not surrender immediately, but if I were Trump then I would not have ordered this attack unless I was ready and willing to fight until Iranian surrender. Unlike the USA in World War II, Iran has no plausible means to win the war if the USA has the will to follow through.

In short, arguments that the Iranian nuclear program has only been set back a small amount are only true if we don't keep bombing them, but my conclusion from that is that we should keep bombing them now that we've decided to start. If we do, they can't build a bomb.