I don't get it.
If it's not about nukes (which it isn't) what are they gonna bomb?
The sponsors made its intent clear: "All options must be on the table when it comes to Iran — except for one, and that is containment." Senator Joe Lieberman (I-CT) said that "the consequences of a nuclear-armed Iran cannot be 'contained' like the threat of the Soviet Union" — or China, or North Korea, or Pakistan.
Just over a year ago I transcribed some of the speeches given at the Halifax International Security Forum. Here's Senator Lindsey Graham, who sits on the Budget, Armed Forces, and Homeland Security committees :
"The one thing that changes the world as I know it is Iran with a nuclear weapon. The consequences are enormous, the idea of containment to me is off the table, so that takes us back to the idea of being tough. ...
So my view of military force would be not to just neutralize their nuclear program, which would probably disperse and harden, but to sink their navy, destroy their air force, and deliver a decisive blow to the Revolutionary Guard.In other words, neuter that regime, destroy their ability to fight back, and hope the people within Iran would have the chance to take back their government and be good neighbours to the world in the future. So that's what I mean by being tough."
So the short answer to your question would seem to be : people, infrastructure, army, navy, air force.