>>>>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.

Nuclear power is also about having enough well educated people and a wide industrial base.
Which sort of bombing is going to prevent that.

Its going to happen one day and we may as well start dealing with that.