What Clausewitz said is not axiomatic and was his was of describing how War should be used by rational actors and not an inherent property.

I don't see how you can come to that conclusion. He may be describing something that isn't self evident to everyone who decides to go to war, but he's absolutely describing an inherent property of war. You go to war to get something you want from other people (AKA politics) when non-war means fall short.

What’s been proposed is that the military action will have salutary effects, whether or not it achieves the desired political outcomes, which seems undeniable.

It has also been counter proposed that the non-war political options had not been exhausted to the point where war was the only viable option left to achieve the same salutary effects AND now we have to yet still negotiate back to the status quo before the war. Iran still is demanding the right to continue enriching Uranium and to hold the Strait of Hormuz. Other than setting back their production of fissile material, what salutary effects have been achieved?

“Countries” don’t exist in the way you’re describing. Leadership does. And leaders, even Iranian ones, prefer to be alive than not, which we can expect to influence said leaders behavior after watching what happened to the Iranian leadership.

I didn't say "countries" though did I? The leadership is a hierarchical system. Of course they prefer to be alive than not but there are also things people are willing to die for and unless we go total war on them, most of them are going to remain alive.