[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
This is a tough issue. Honestly, I don't think any "tough talk" is going to solve the problem. Either you are going to be able to bribe them to desist (and have some compliance mechanism), you are going to allow them to go nuclear, you are going to start bombing their nuclear facilities (which many people say now will not work because they are too far underground!) or you are going to start a war.

They are not going to just back down under pressure unless you really show them that the military threat is credible, which is tough to do. A full-blown military operation is not feasible right now or in the immediate future, even if we wanted to do it. And airstrikes carry with them much more substantial risk given our other continuing misadventure in that neighborhood.

This is another situation in which I don't think there are any good answers right now, an unfortunate situation for which the Bush administration must take a substantial amount of the blame.

[/ QUOTE ]


Sam, I agree with most of this, except I do suspect we could likely launch enough strikes to set their facilities and programs back for many years.

I agree there are no easy solutions, and that any action is likely to be fraught with undesirable complications.

However, relative inaction (or ineffective action) on our part constitutes a choice too.

In my vie, the downside of allowing Iran to acquire nuclear weapons is much greater than the other downsides and complications which might result from forcibly interceding to prevent this. If they're intransigent trouble-makers now, aiding and abetting terrorist groups, how much more forthright and bold would they be once they have the protective deterrence of nuclear weapons?