>>>>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.
>>
>>It would serve only to destroy Tehran and probably the current government of Iran. Nothing more.
>
>So, you deny it would destroy their power to build a nuclear bomb? That's not realistic.

That Iran may be prevented from building one would be a minor issue.


>>>>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?
>>
>>It will legitimize the use of WMD by all sides and for any reason perceived as just by the attacker.
>
>It will not legitimize the use of WMD (what's that?). At most, some people will say and think it legitimizes it. Same argument for the next two.

Those "some people" would be our enemies. That some of our allies agree / disagree would be almost irrelevant when faced with an enemy who would be absolutely and correctly convinced that there are no boundaries in the war whatsoever. Of course it would legitimize the use of WMD.


Interesting that the most important argument you snip...

More significantly - the very fact that a nuke has not yet been dropped on Tehran is itself confirmation by the US military and government that they themselves do not feel the pros outweigh the cons otherwise it would have been done already. They surely understand more about the ramifications of such an act than anyone else...