WE have the capability to do it.
WE have the needed bunker-buster type bombs.
WE can fly over Iraq. It's not at all clear that Israel can.
ISRAEL is the one who faces immediate and furious and insane reprisals -- no matter who takes out the Iranian nuclear plants.
So it boils down to three options.
(1) We permit Israel to act as our surrogate and do the deed. Our help would be needed to get to Iran.
(2) We stop acting like pussies and we do it ourselves (at great immediate risk to Israel).
(3) We elect to do nothing and have nobody act like a surrogate, and Iran ends up with nukes.
What we should do is an open question, but I will bet you that I know exactly what we WILL do. Option #3. President Obama is simply not up to the job.
I know how much you and your ilk just
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOVE wars, but I wish you could just be satisfied with Afghanistan for now. Our troops are really really tired.
Nobody loooooves wars, stupid.
And, nothing I said puts me in the camp of suggesting that we strike.
What I said was that Israel could do it as our surrogate (if we enable them to fly over Iraq); or WE could do it by ourselves (with the added benefit that WE have bunker-buster type bombs capable of getting the buried hardened targets); OR that neither of the above happens (i.e., nobody does it) and Iran ends up as a nation with nukes.
And if we strike the Iranian sites and destroy their nuclear weapons-making capacity, we would be doing it from on high, not with ground troops, stupid. If you think Iran is then going to go all bat-shit crazy and send their ineffective troops up against ANYBODY, you're mistaken.
I DID, however, note that PResident Obama who is in way the hell over his head is CERTAIN to choose option #3. That's a complete given. It does not mean that I favor war or loooove war. IS there a reason you

say such stupid shit?