I profess no expertise on the debate over bombing Iranian nuclear facilities, that aside if there ever was a time and opportunity to coerce Iran that way it is past. If an alternative target was considered, as JMA suggests:there would be significantly less legitimacy and IMHO with international law - no legitimacy.For example a precision strike on a full sitting of the Islamic Consultative Assembly might just send the right message..
Elsewhere IIRC analysts have provided explanations as to why Iran has gone down the nuclear weapons route and that I suspect is largely built around hostile neighbours with US military facilities. We know that the current Iranian regime has its internal critics and its own problems of legitimacy. By addressing those factors offers a way ahead.
Bombing is simply not a policy option for a host of reasons, as illustrated by the debate here and the links to the analysis provided by experts.
I am also mindful that Israel is a nuclear weapon state, albeit un-declared IIRC and that her national interests - which are not the same as others - are well served by a focus on Iran, so avoiding a closer examination of Israel's position. (A veritable "minefield" in its own right asking SWC to consider this).
Bookmarks