[sam h]

[ 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?

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand what you're saying, M. I just wonder about the current viability of the air strike option.

I really have no idea how effective it could be. But I've read in a couple places that the Iranian facilities are in very deep underground bunkers and that we don't even have that great intelligence about where all the facilities are. That could be faulty, but it seems to at least be an unresolved issue.

I also think that the administration has really put itself in a bad spot vis-a-vis Iran through its Iraq policy. Not only will a more actively hostile Iran be much more capable of destabilizing the situation in Iraq, but more open antagonism between the US and Iran is really going to jeopardize whatever chance we have of nurturing the future development of a reasonably pro-US Shiite government.

So I don't really have an answer. But I think the Bush administration has put us up the creek without a paddle.