>You have to be willing to believe that there would be no fallout from bombing Tehran in order to by into the idea that it would be a great idea. It appears your friend has convinced you of that.

My replies to Walter were not arguments that fit with my personal opinion. It were merely arguments that the pro-bombing wing may (or may not) use. I think it is important to analyze the pro-bombing arguments, consider its strong points and make clear where they fail.

Often people need a whole set of arguments to justify a certain choice. It sometimes is enough to show that only one or two of those arguments are incorrect, to effectively undermine the justification of the choice.

In case of bombing Tehran, the pro-bombing argument that it will prevent that the Iranians can further develop a bomb is probably true and therefore cannot really be undermined. So, forget that one, or admit it's probably true. It may be a better strategy to proof, let's say, that a major group of muslims and even many non-muslims will show anger (justified or not) about this act and will gonna seek revenge (justified or not) underground. The costs of such an aftereffect may convince many in the initially pro-bombing wing that it is a too risky endeavour and that it's indeed best to seek an alternative way of handling the issues.