Coggins7 wrote:The best way to deal with Tehran may just be some well placed Tomahawk's such that as many leaders of that country and their hanger's on could be eliminated in one shot (along with any and all nuclear capacity and infrastructure).
The problem with this is that the bulk of the nuclear research sites in Iran are very larg underground complexes. This means that 1. they're hardened, and 2. the size of the sites means that any convential strike that could penitrate isn't going to do much damage to the facility.
This means that the only option for negating quite a few of theses sites is the use of nuclear weapons. So baring Iran going completely off it's rocker and attacking the US or our allies with a CBRN attack, we won't use nukes on them. Stated US policy for decades has been that we will not use nuclear weapons except in response to the use of chemical, biological, radiolocical, or nuclear weapons against us.
Coggins7 wrote: There is as I understand things, a pretty sizable opposition movement within the country, and substantial pro-American feeling there within that movement, so in may not be necessary to invade and hold territory there, unlike Iraq and Afghanistan.
There is, but the Iranian opposition movement believes in using the countries democratic process to non-violently engage in political change. The President of Iran is a figurehead, just a public face. The guy who is in charge of the country is the Supreme Leader, who along with the Council of Guardians controls Irnaian military policy. The only way to remove the Supreme leader is for the Iranian people to completely change out their elected representitives in the Assembly of Experts (Kind of like their version of the Senate), which in turn would require a massive overhual of the entire nations political and social structure.
Not going to happen any time soon. Sure, they could end up with a moderate as president, but they have always had a hardliner as Supreme Leader.
On Mathematics: I divided by zero! Oh SHI....