Look the military option is not a realistic option. The Iranians have been very cleaver, normally speaking if you want to build bombs you need a nuclear reactor either a heavy water, or breeder, there is another way though with cyclotrons, none of the nuclear powers use this method because it is very slow, with several steps involved, much faster to use reactors. The one advantage of cyclotrons is that each step is independent from the others, can be done small scale and can be done in widely distributed sites. and every step but the last one is perfectly legal under the treaties. The Iranians can build a lot of redundancy into the system, which means that a lot of sites would have to be targeted. And what will be Israel's response to the rocketing of Its own installations, which is what will happen after an attack on Iran. That is unless the attack has also taken out all Iran's missile sites as well. Such a large scale attack would be tantamount to war, and the US will not let Israel attempt it as long as they are mired next door in Iraq. It maybe that Israel is willing to take some damage to slow down Iran's march to the nuclear club, but because of its distributed, and easily reconstituted nature, the slowdown would be short lived, and depending on the amount of the reprisal damage it would seems unlikely that Israel would want a second round. The other way to stop Iran's movement towards the bomb is to offer it something that it wants more. What that is I don't Know but I suspect an denuclearized ME would be a good starting point, and I suggest that a real settlement of the Palestinian issue with honor, and a comprehensive peace with the Arab states is more important than ever.
Hello user Logout | profile
You have watched of 10 articles
Hamas operative, 24, accused of attempting to attack soldiers on Gaza border (Haaretz)
from the article: Ahmadinejad can continue to smile while the world argues