Critical Point  Against  the  Iran nuclear program deal… The window , within which the United States and/or Israel can take effective military  action ( in  case  Iran significantly violates  the deal ), is closing rapidly.

A  major  defense for the Iran deal is that if the deal fails – be it in a week or in decades – the United States will always have the same military option available.The U.S. military option depends on the ability of B-2 stealth bombers loaded with Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP) bombs to reach strategic Iranian
targets

.

The B-2 can carry out the mission today – but there is great uncertainty that
this will be the case in the future. The Russians claim: “Neither the Northrop B-2 Spirit Stealth bomber nor Lockheed F-117 Nighthawk can fly undetected from Russian missiles." [Major General Sergei] Babakov, the head of Russia’s anti-aircraft missile troops.” US ‘Stealth’ Bombers Can’t Hide From Russian Anti-Aircraft Missiles –Sputnik News 5 July, 2015.}

The Russians have announced their intention to sell these missiles in the very near future to Iran. Iran has announced its  intention to purchase these missiles. This is a cash transaction for which Iran will have the resources due to sanction relief. Russia, on its part, will gain the resources to promote its upgrade of its missile forces in support itother endeavors in Eastern Europe.  {Anti-Aircraft missiles are classified  as   defensive systems and thus not considered subject to any supply restrictions on Iran.}

 Now  the question becomes: suppose the United States has  the" will to act" and has a the desire to act––– would  the US have the capability to act a few years down the road...with Iranian strategic sites  PROTECTED?

With Iran having deployed air  defense systems systems that can track and shoot down B-2’s threatening strategic Iranian sites---the answer is: NO!

Would ground invasion be a feasible alternative? Even if the United States had the will to send in ground forces – they would have to enter combat  under
the unprecedented condition of operating without the benefit of air cover, At
 best, it would be long, costly, and very unpopular in  the United States, in the Mideast, and in the rest of the world.

Would  Special Forces operations be a feasible alternative against a program in widely dispersed and fortified installations? The answer is: very highly doubtful… and a best, marginal with limited short-term results.

THUS, ANY  CLAIM  THAT FUTURE U.S. PRESIDENTS WILL ALWAYS   HAVE THE MILITARY OPTION IF THE DEALIS VIOLATED IS ,UNFORTUNATELY, BOTH UNTRUE AND DECEPTIVE.