Although in regards to Iran, Bush used his favorite phrase, "all options are on the table," he did say, military action would not be his first choice. More importantly, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Admiral Mullen admitted "opening up a third front right now would be extremely stressful on us — that doesn't mean we don't have capacity or reserves — that would really very challenging, and the consequences on that would be difficult to predict." But I’m convinced that the solution still lies in using other elements of national power to change Iranian behaviour, including diplomatic, financial and international pressure.”
With nationalist resistance in Afghanistan and Iraq starting to pick up again, is this really the right time to open a third front? While the Army and Marines are bearing the brunt of occupying the first two fronts, the Air Force and Navy would be conducting the initial assault against the third front in Iran. But what then? Destroying a few buildings with centrifuges and some Iranian military capability will not slow down appreciably Iranian enrichment activities, if that is what they are doing. To have any kind of long term objective, any air attack on Iran must be followed up with a ground presence.
Unlike Iraq's armed forces which had been retrograded from 1991 to 2003 by US action and sanctions, Iran's military is expanding and acquiring greater stand off capabilities. Unlike Afghanistan and Iraq, where US forces pretty much just waltzed in as far as invasions go, Iran will not be as easy. Getting in will be bloody and the occupation will be resisted by a professional guerrilla organization, Hezbollah.
The US won't attack Iran because it can't. Or in the words of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, it will be "challenging" and "difficult."
