Should the U.S. Use Military Force Against Iran?

Recommend (2) Comments (1)

Option 1: Surgical attacks. The least unattractive option, it would be hard to pull off. Israel's quick-strike destruction of Iraq's Osirak nuclear facility 25 years ago cannot be replicated in Iran. The mullahs have dispersed, hardened and hidden nuclear installations and facilities throughout the country. Putting them out of commission would require a sustained and widespread campaign of air and missile strikes. Some locations would likely require American boots on the ground. Not an impossible task, but not quick and easy - or clean.

Option 2: Invasion. An even messier option, this would look something like the invasion of Iraq, only a bit tougher. Ultimately, Iran's military would be defeated. But U.S. military forces would be strained severely -- a situation that would continue throughout an unpredictable and costly occupation. With unfinished business in Iraq and other critical commitments - such as Afghanistan, defending South Korea, watching the Taiwan Strait, and supporting homeland security -- this option hinges on America's willingness to commit to real and sustained increases in defense spending in the years ahead.

Option 3: Nuclear Weapons. This is the least viable. Absent a clear, present and immediate threat of nuclear attack, Americans instinctively recoil from the thought of overthrowing even the maddest tyrant if the price tag includes millions of innocent dead.