I think this is a bizarre comparison. The people of Vietnam hated the French colonial occupation, and most of them despised the American-backed regime as well. They were fighting a 20-year-long anti-colonial war for independence (something that China, by the way, does not want any of the people they've colonized to emulate).
On the contrary, there's every indication that the people of Iran, as well as Venezuela, legitimately hate their repressive regimes and want nothing more than a chance to overthrow them. This isn't imposing regime change on some country that had never thought of it. It's clearing the path for the people of that country to execute regime change for themselves.
In that sense, our role here is quite a lot more like the Soviets in Vietnam, than America in Vietnam, or of either country in Afghanistan. We're not in the position of needing to prop up a puppet regime or find ethnic groups or exogenous actors. All we really need to do is target the existing oppressors.
>> if the US decides to unilaterally stop bombing Iran, it leaves Israel open to the Iranians, which is something Israel and AIPAC won't let the US do.
Stop with the AIPAC > blaming Israel for getting America into this. Israel did great work taking out Iran's defenses and gaining air superiority in the previous 12-day war, and it was only held back from continuing by the US - temporarily losing the total control it held. Furthermore, in no way is Israel going to be open to attack after this, whether or not the US remains involved.
Consider what happens if this war does succeed in weakening the Iranian regime to the point where the people can come back into the street and overthrow it: Russia loses its drone and missile manufacturer, the West has a bargaining chip in oil against China's control of rare earths, and conceivably there is a broad peaceful order in the Middle East between Sunnis, Shia and Jews, all relatively Western-facing, potentially progressive and aligned with the US and Europe. Would that be a terrible outcome?
