Our own military has stated that the best case scenario is that we can delay their nuclear program a couple of years. In return, we enrage an entire population against us, certainly inflame the entire middle east, ensure the survival of a theocratic regime, and have a 3rd war on our hands.



This is were you and I differ. The future of Iran should differently come into our considerations whether or not to bomb. I prefer look at our long-term goals in an highly unstable region rather that trying to hope for some negligible short-term results with huge long-term consequences. And you say "we can't wait for another generation to come to power"? Why not? Even if Iran develops a nuclear weapon, what are they going to do? If they use it on Israel or any other country that would mean the end of the Regime's existence - and we all know how much the regime cares about it's survival. They don't even have a missile technology to deliver it - which is a whole other project.

We cannot ignore the great potential for us, in the normalize relations between the United States and the New Iran that will eventually come into being. It will be profound, and will categorically change the geo-politics of the region.



The Iran economy has been suffering for quite sometime and will continue to suffer - the new sanctions will only make it worse. While there's no resolution that can stop Iran crossing the nuclear threshold. The fact is, there is no way of stopping a country going nuclear if it's prepared to find enough cash and face down international censure. Military strikes would only buy time - an uncertain gain at a huge cost. The best deterrence we can do, is to raise the price of a bomb and deepen the disgrace. It's not ideal, but it's the only sane option we have given the hand we're dealt with.