[dabigv13]

Neither the US nor Israel have any intention of using ground troops in Iran, except possibly special forces (Israeli ones are probably already there in small numbers). . The military objective of getting Iran off the nuclear threshold can certainly be accomplished by a B-2 strike. It may be possible for Israel to accomplish it by themselves. A raid may be the methodology. That would be the biggest risk yet if Israel tries it. The political objectives of Israel (whatever they actually are) may not be accomplished. IMO Israel would be satisfied but not ecstatic with that outcome.

Clearly Israel and the US would prefer not to use ground troops. But you're opening the door to that when you get involved militarily. You break it, you buy it.

Could B2 bombers completely eliminate the Iranian risk? Maybe, but I don't think that's certain. And if you can't be 100% or close on that, it's not worth it IMHO. If you fail, they will definitely try to break out since they know Israel and the US cannot be negotiated with, and once you have the nuke, your regime security is much greater. North Korea is watching this all go down, glad to be sitting on some nukes. 

Israel has clearly developed good intelligence assets within Iran, maybe they are 100% certain of where all the enriched uranium is. But maybe they aren't, and telling us they are to encourage us to get involved. You may need ground troops to definitively eliminate their nuclear program, maybe a lot of them if Iran has dispersed their enriched uranium well.

We can only speculate, and yes Iran has not demonstrated a ton of competency. But the recent history of US military involvement in the Middle East should give pause to the idea we can do some limited strike and then wash our hands of things.

This Economist article lays out the state of play on the nuclear weapon front. It's a gift article but it says only one person can see it, so whoever gets to it first can read the whole thing.

https://www.economist.com/middle-east-an...ed_article

[dabigv13]

Neither the US nor Israel have any intention of using ground troops in Iran, except possibly special forces (Israeli ones are probably already there in small numbers). . The military objective of getting Iran off the nuclear threshold can certainly be accomplished by a B-2 strike. It may be possible for Israel to accomplish it by themselves. A raid may be the methodology. That would be the biggest risk yet if Israel tries it. The political objectives of Israel (whatever they actually are) may not be accomplished. IMO Israel would be satisfied but not ecstatic with that outcome.

Clearly Israel and the US would prefer not to use ground troops. But you're opening the door to that when you get involved militarily. You break it, you buy it.

Could B2 bombers completely eliminate the Iranian risk? Maybe, but I don't think that's certain. And if you can't be 100% or close on that, it's not worth it IMHO. If you fail, they will definitely try to break out since they know Israel and the US cannot be negotiated with, and once you have the nuke, your regime security is much greater. North Korea is watching this all go down, glad to be sitting on some nukes. 

Israel has clearly developed good intelligence assets within Iran, maybe they are 100% certain of where all the enriched uranium is. But maybe they aren't, and telling us they are to encourage us to get involved. You may need ground troops to definitively eliminate their nuclear program, maybe a lot of them if Iran has dispersed their enriched uranium well.

We can only speculate, and yes Iran has not demonstrated a ton of competency. But the recent history of US military involvement in the Middle East should give pause to the idea we can do some limited strike and then wash our hands of things.

This Economist article lays out the state of play on the nuclear weapon front. It's a gift article but it says only one person can see it, so whoever gets to it first can read the whole thing.

https://www.economist.com/middle-east-an...ed_article