>>The U.S. bombing Iran, even if only the nuclear facilities, would simply assure a never-ending flow of Jihadists.
>The U.S. must look at options that shrink the numbers of Jihadists, not explode them.
>The world, except for the U.S. (not sure about Israel), seems to have the right approach. Apparently one factor in the decision-making on the issue is that President Bush is reputed to believe that 'no future President, Republican or Democrat, can be trusted to do it if need be, so the duty falls to himself'.
>
>Hi Jim.
>Let me play the devil's advocate.
>It seems like most of the Europe is in agreement with the US on this. But they don't know how to prevent Iran from developing the bomb. They look towards the US to do some. In the mean time Iran is buying time with so called "negotiations" until finally they are able to build the bomb and threatens Israel or some other country. What happens then?
>
>I'm not saying the US should do anything. I think it will be Israel that ultimately does something about after all, Iran's prez. has already said he want Israel to be wiped off the face of the earth.

Hi Sam,

I'd say most of the world agrees that Iran must NOT get nulcear weapons.
But we have to be careful as to how that agreement is 'translated'.

I doubt that Europe is looking "towards the U.S. to do some(thing).", but rather for all to be on-side as regards preventing the problem. I feel confident in saying that 'Europe' does NOT want to see Iran bombed.

I suspect that Israel would be inclined to "do something" - and we all know what we mean by that, given the strike several years ago to Iraq - but Iran poses a significantly different problem than did Iraq. Distance, allies of Iran, the erraticness of the U.S. of late and who knows what else.

It's a sticky situation, but all things should be negotiable when it comes to state-state.