In the year leading up the US invasion of Iraq, hawkish commentators filled the op-ed sections of leading American newspapers with all of the reasons why America needed to invade. Little ink was spilled on what might happen after Saddam was overthrown, and how to handle different scenarios- just vague notions of a democratic spring.

Similarly, as the war hawks try to turn up the pressure to bomb Iran, there is little discussion of the potential aftermath. From Greg Scoblete, via Daniel Larison:

...I'm more interested in what happens after America attacks Iran. What if the government collapses? Do we occupy the country? Do we allow a power vacuum? Do we let a Revolutionary Guard commander assume control? A cleric? Could we exercise any control in Iran following an attack? And if the current regime hangs on and then redoubles their nuclear efforts, do we subject them to another pounding five years hence?

Perhaps this is because those who have thought through the aftermath wouldn't advocate bombing Iran in the first place.