I'm not the only one who thinks that if it comes to a showdown over Iran developing a nuclear arsenal and the means to deliver the devices that a military solution is possible.
Of course it would be in Israel's best interests to take down any bomb producing facility inside Iran before the weapons became operational.
But, Gen. Chuck Wild (USAF four star retired), a very knowledgable man on this issue, says that the the U.S. has a military option that would pose no strain on our presently deployed troops.
He made a three point argument in a recent Wall Street Journal op ed piece.
--Going public that we were seriously preparing for a military strike (even though we weren't) could make Tehran rethink the cost of developing nuclear weapons.
--The next step would be to blockade Iranian ports which would effectively cut nearly one-third of its gasoline needs. The political leadership is already under enormous pressure from its citizens, and the kinds of economic dislocations that such a blockade would produce could be destabilizing.
--If all that didn't work, and if the diplomatic wrangling failed, Gen. Wild maintains that the U.S. could launch a devastating attack on Iran's nuclear and military facilities. This would only involve Air Force and Navy air assets that are not heavily strained in Iraq or Afghanistan.
The general concludes his argument that " . . .the risks of military action must be weighed against those of doing nothing."