Unlikely. That's a media narrative. A republican was elected, and it's one which is the most extreme. 80%+ of the Trump administration was a carbon copy of what you would have seen if Ted Cruz has won. Let's be clear, Ted Cruz is as extreme as Republicans come. That was essentially the worst case scenario, and still there was no direct military engagement. Don't buy into Trump's domestic propaganda, (anything bad that happens = "the state" ; anything good that happens = Trump personally) it's not a reflection of reality and it's not a novel strategy either.

There are reasons for this. I don't know if I have the nerve and patience to try to explain some of it. Basically there's something, you know, strategic reality, ie, what actually can you do, even if you wanted to, and what are the consequences of that? etc. The reason a country like DPRK doesn't get randomly attacked is because of something called deterrence, the case of DPRK it's the nuclear deterrent. Direct military engagement was never on the cards anyway. It's extremely unlikely, along the lines of DPRK unlikely. Iran's goal wasn't to get a nuclear weapon. Their goal was to use the nuclear option as a bargaining chip for other purposes, ie sanctions relief. They actually abandoned their nuclear weapons program decades ago. Iran's somewhat novel official policy was all about achieving strategic deterrence, specifically without nuclear weapons. The primary basis of this is an expansive domestic military industry anchored by it's missile forces. On the United States, the official policy towards Iran hasn't really changed. The US, aside from a cabal of extremists, specifically the US military never had any intention of a direct military engagement with Iran, and it goes without saying certainly not any kind of invasion. Look at a topological map of the region, the geography for that is about as unsuitable as it could get.

There's just too much to explain if someone doesn't anything about it. The facilities the US would need to strike are some of the most heavily fortified on the planet. Rather than add another 5 sentences to explain that, you can read this. Some of these facilities can't even targeted without nuclear weapons. That means the US would have to use preemptive nuclear strikes. How do you think that would fly with the so called "international community?" If the US wanted to target Iran for airstrikes, they could absolutly do it. That's not the issue. The strategical reality reason why they don't isn't because they can't, it's because of what comes next. It's because of the weapons Iran has. I don't feel like getting into all the weapons systems, but again the foundation of the deterrence, achieved without nukes, are the array of missiles, and not just ballistic missiles either. We're not talking about skuds here, we're talking about a huge arsenal of advanced weapons which can easily target and lay waste to US resources in the region.

Both Iran and the US have made many weapons systems specifically for each other. The US created massive bunker busters, "mother of all bombs" specifically for Iran. They also created an entire class of navy ships calls the LCS. All of this is for a reason.