If you really think sanctions or revolution are the only way to go, but think that an attack won't work so there is no rush to implement alternatives, think again:
Gen David Petraeus, head of Central Command or Centcom, did not elaborate on the plans, but said the military has considered the impacts of any action taken there.
Asked about the vulnerability of Iran's nuclear installations, he told CNN: "Well, they certainly can be bombed. The level of effect would vary with who it is that carries it out, what ordnance they have, and what capability they can bring to bear."
Petraeus put his assessment in context, that as CENTCOM commander he'd of course have to think about this, but the basic point remains: Iran's nuclear infrastructure can be attacked by either America or Israel--it just depends on how good a job each can do (and Israel can't defend against Iranian counter-attacks as we can). As I wrote:
It is true that only America can attack Iran with enough power and persistence to muffle Iran's potential response.
But this does not mean that Israel won't attack because they can't match our capabilities to do the job far more thoroughly. Israel can take a shot at Iran's nuclear facilities even though they can't take a shot at Iran's other military assets.
At some point, it will be obvious that sanctions and revolution won't have an effect in time to stop Iran from going nuclear. At that point, the military options that so many people now say can't work, will be discussed far more seriously. Because Iran's nuclear infrastructure can indeed be bombed.
