With that said, Iran does very transparently fund terrorists to do their dirty work for them (not that this is unique to Iran).

This is a mischaracterization of how force works. Guerilla war is far superior to " doing the dirty work themselves". You can train a guerilla force as part of your main military, but by its very nature it needs to be decentralized or it's not effective, it needs to be distributed or it's easy to decapitate, and it needs to be constantly shifting in response to conditions. In essence, using guerilla forces IS doing the dirty work yourself, it's not delegating it to another group so you don't have to get your hands dirty.

The terrorist label is a useless term anyway. Terrorism is strategy for using civilian terror to effect change. The USA military uses the strategy of terrorism, they call it "shock and awe doctrine". But calling rank and file soldiers "terrorists" doesn't make any sense. Similarly, guerilla fighters don't actually use terrorism, IEDs target military caravans. Shooting rockets at air defense systems to understand their limits is a military intelligence campaign. Enforcing a blockade/embargo is a core military function. Hit and run tactics works. Urban warfare is as necessary as mountain warfare and jungle warfare. In essence, the USA invented the label of terrorist to vilify people instead of tactics, and then drifted its usage away from "using civilian terror" towards "guerilla tactics". This became enshrined in law in the USA as "enemy combatant", a third label never before seen in law. Previously there was civilian and military. There's a thousand years of law and jurisprudence using those two categories, from international treaties to domestic military courts to penal codes. This new third status, invented by the USA, discards all of that and allows the USA to do anything they want to anyone they deem fits this new legal category, which maps directly to whoever they call a "terrorist" which, as I think I've established, is far more about fighting guerillas than it is about fighting terrorism.

Going to guess you mean John Bolton, the infamous warmonger who loudly started calling for immediate, "far stronger" US response yesterday. He's a draft dodger who has admitted he joined the National Guard and then went to law school just to avoid going to Vietnam. "I wasn't going to waste time on a futile struggle," he has written, adding "I confess I had no desire to die in a Southeast Asian rice paddy… I considered the war in Vietnam already lost". Yet the whole time he advocated for keeping other US soldiers fighting in the war. He didn't fight in the war of his time, he won't ever go to war now that he's old, but by damn is he ever sure that the US should send people to fight everywhere from Iran to Cuba.

In 2019, Democrat Seth Moulton, who actually served 4 tours in Iraq, called both Bolton and Trump "chickenhawks" because they're hawkish for war but completely unwilling to fight it themselves. (Trump reportedly "avoided service in the Vietnam War after his father called in a favor with a doctor, who wrote a note saying that Trump had bone spurs on his feet, making him ineligible for the draft.") To use the popular Franklin D. Roosevelt quote - "War is young men dying and old men talking."

Bolton.

Trump’s administration also had a lot of old Bush folks that wanted to antagonize Iran.

John Bolton?

John Bolton

It tried? I'm fairly certain it did.

Yeah, when it comes to WWIII I'm more worried about what NATO/EU is going to do if Ukraine starts collapsing than Israel vs. Iran. If Russia takes Ukraine and starts eyeing other Eastern European countries, or strongly anti-Putin EU countries decide they are willing to go to war to stop him then things could get messy FAST. That's why it's so important that the US doesn't stop funding for Ukraine (like a some politicians, especially Republicans, seem to want). Ukraine is legitimately the bulwark against Russian aggression that could bloom into something much worse.

Israel vs. Iran would be bad, but I don't think enough countries would join in on Iran's side to make this a world war. I'd expect more of a new Gulf/Iraq/Afghanistan War than WWIII.