>1. Agression will induce more agression. [...]

Tell that to Iran's president, Osama Bin Laden, the Taliban, Hamas, the terrorists. Who started?

>2. It serves no military goal, other than it will enforce Irans decision to develop nuclear weapons and will use arguments of the right to defend itself.

But what if such a fierce attack on Teheran effectively destroys Iran's capacity to further develop nuclear weapons? In that case it would be a military (and political) goal.

>3. It will have a negative effect on the US image world wide as it now would reflect the strong muscled guy who acts like an elephant in a chinashop.

A negative effect on who? Do these people think positive about the US now then?

>4. Nations like china, north korea and even russia will build up their military forces and expand their influences as they realise that they could be next.

Do the US currently threaten China and Russia? Why should they feel they might be next? They might also decide to cooperate.

>5. The international finance market could react [...]

It will sure do. But if it results in a lessening of the threat that Iran poses, it may well lead to a positive effect after a while.


Now, these were all counter arguments that might be brought in. I'm not suggesting here that I am pro-bombing Teheran. And I'm also not trying to start a new debate. So, don't feel urged to reply. :)

BTW, I missed several other arguments, most natably the ethical arguments.