Isn't that splitting hairs? Taking out their nuclear program is taking out their nuclear program, however accomplished, don't you agree?
Title implies that ther will be an attack with airpower.
Only problem is that it didn't happen, no matter who didn't accomplish it.
>>”Title is wrong. The US did not have plans for a strike. Just counterinsurgency plans.”
I’d argue that key point is that the Bush43 admin is ending and neither happened - there is every indication we will be dealing with a nuclear Iran with missiles that reach Tel Aviv if not Europe. And our hope is that Hillary Clinton can put her conniving to good use. Sigh.
I completely disagree. A strike implies a wholly integrated allied or US attack using our equipment and training with at least a measurable calculation for success. An insurgency in THAT location using the word sabotage implies something very different. The only way access could be reasonably had under those circumstances would be using local assets and that is a very problematic equation.
A STRIKE would bring to bear overwhelming firepower and ordnance, not to mention sophisticated electronics and the highest quality personnel in the world.
Leaving 007 out of this, you're telling me that a bunch of disaffected Iranians are going to throw an effective monkey wrench into all of the myriad of targets that will need destroying? I don't think so. Unless you think they're going to pull a reverse Jihad attack by delivering a nuke and blowing themselves up?