Pentagon: Force must be option for Iran

Military force would have only limited effect in stopping Iran from developing nuclear weapons but must remain an option, the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said Monday.

Tehran shows no signs of backing down in the standoff over what the United States and other countries say is its drive for a nuclear bomb, Adm. Mike Mullen, the top U.S. military officer, told his staff in an annual assessment of the nation's risks and priorities.

"My belief remains that political means are the best tools to attain regional security and that military force will have limited results," Mullen wrote. "However, should the president call for military options, we must have them ready."

. . . In the past two or three years the United States had all but ruled out an attack on Iran's known nuclear facilities as too risky, because of the backlash it might unleash.

. . . President Obama has set a rough deadline of the end of this year for Iran to respond to an offer of dialogue and to show that it will allay fears of weapons development. The Obama administration is working with allies to ready a new set of international economic sanctions on Iran for repeatedly defying international demands to halt questionable activities and come clean about the nature and extent of the program.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2009-12-21-iran-military-force_N.htm

Obama's Pentagon is preparing "military options" while Obama sets "a rough deadline of the end of this year for Iran to respond to an offer of dialogue and to show that it will allay fears of weapons development."

Assuming Iran is not going to "respond to an offer of dialogue" and "allay fears of weapons development", it looks like the "anti war" primary candidate is planning yet another war in the Middle East.