> That alone hints that it is very hard to bring a dictatorship down with just aerial attacks.

This has been painfully obvious since aerial bombing became possible, but we’ve had so many generals and executives obsessed with the concept that it continues to be a core doctrine, like Kissinger and Curtis LeMay, neither of for whom I have anything but deep contempt.

Was Saddam's Iraq (post Desert Storm when he no longer had the ability to wage offensive war) really that bad compared to what came after?

Counterexanple would be Venezuela

I'm glad someone else remembers. Desert Storm was fast (kind of) because it had a limited objective: Repel an invading army from another nation. It did not lead to an invasion (long term) of Iraq. Comparing any war with the objective of regime change to Desert Storm reveals that the commenter is grossly ignorant of recent history (36 years ago, it's not that far back to be so ignorant).

Desert Storm also wasn't really fast, it led to containment operations lasting a bit over a decade in total, ending only when we decided to invade Iraq with the objective of regime change and nation building. And that one, predictably, turned into a quagmire.

It would have confused the Iranians as the regime would then claim that the foreign military attacks prove that the protests are artificially engineered by the same foreign enemy with the support of the Shah. It would also mean the automatic imposition of martial law in Iran, thus making protests even more difficult to organise.