Only place that is viable launching pad for a US land invasion would be Kuwait and Southern Iraq, as the land there would be flat enough for an armored push. But even then when you look at a topographic map of Iran, one realizes what a gargantuan undertaking it would truly be and why every US general worth their salt always advised against it. Its not a game at all and beyond the comprehension of geopolitics hobbyists.
View attachment 171861
The country is only 300,000 square kilometers smaller than Iraq and Afghanistan combined, incredibly mountainous, has numerous population centers that the US and Israel will have to occupy, with a population that despises them and won't even grant them the "honeymoon phase" that Iraqi and Afghanis gave them during the initial days of both their respective invasions. That's not to mention that even the viable launching point of Kuwait is constantly under drone and missile fire, nevermind the rest of the Gulf if America chose an amphibious invasion. There's been talk of using Central Asia and Pakistan, but of course I doubt any of those countries would grant the US approval to do so. And there's the Caucuses which is a no no for obvious reasons.
This is an operation that to be safe and drawing from the lessons of Russia's Ukraine war will need an invasion force of roughly 1 million personnel. For reference, America currently has roughly 600,000 enlisted combat troops spread across the globe. NATO is unsympathetic, Gulf troops would be useless, mercenaries can only provide 50,000 at most so the invasion force would be 100% American. Meaning a draft would have to be imposed, which would be incredibly unpopular.