>>>>Or one could start from the position: A nuclear armed Iran is unacceptable unless not accepting it would require stopping it, in which case ... oh well.
>>>>
>>>>Obviously, if one does not think a nuclear armed Iran is a problem then there is no reason to try to prevent it. If one decides it must be prevented, then options must be broad - especially if the goal is to prevent it through negotiations. A CINC who publicly takes the military option completely out of the equation - especially where the issue is a military one - is not negotiating seriously but simply putting on a show.
>>>>
>>>>I am not a believer in invasions as a preferred tool, and I'd have to be pretty convinced bombing would do it before that looked good. I would prefer more focused efforts.
>>>>
>>>>Once upon a time Iraq was going to build a very very very big gun to point at Israel ...
>>>
>>>Once upon a time Iraq had a nuclear program too. Israel took care of it the first time.
>>
>>And look how effective that was in the long term.
>
>Pretty much 100%. No Iraqi reactor ever went on line and the likelihood of Saddam trying to get the French to build him another one has been greatly reduced ;-) Imagine 1991 Iraq with nukes.
>
>Now imagine 2010 Iran with nukes.

Saddam had more respect for his own hide than anyone in power in Iran. He would have threatened, but at most he'd have sold something to terrorists to try to keep the axe from falling on him (certainly bad news - but at a slower pace).

Current idiots in Iran would light off in a heartbeat.