True, though one note's they could easily have it if they'd back down a bit and not deliberately antagonize us. There is no non-military application to enriching beyond 3-4% except strictly scientific, and that's a poor excuse when you already have access to 65 years of freely available research from all the scientific juggernauts.



Well, let's say the 'moderates' look to be in a position to seize control, violent or non-violent, in such cases the current government may find their own attitudes switching more hardline and those with more hardline stances might rise to higher power and prominence within them. Predictions along these lines are necessarily difficult, not only because of how hard it really is to gauge public reaction anywhere, but because of the relative closed nature of Iran, we can't really see polls or free press comments to guess how the dice will land.



Realistically their counter-strike couldn't amount to much. If we do this while we still have military force in Iraq, we could smash such an attempt before it got rolling, if it's done afterwards they have limited targets, just Israel against whom they can't really do much conventionally. However, with nuclear weapons, they do have the capital to do all those things, an announcement that Iran has nukes is likely to fluctuate the oil market too. I do not think there will be lots of outrage if the US bombs key facilities, less so than if Israel does it and if progress is not made soon, they may well do so. I think that if we did bomb those facilities, and Iran used it as cassus belli to launch attacks, they would not gain much sympathy in the international community or even in the muslim world, after all, short of a few relatively weak missiles, they really only have the power to strike at other Arab nations.

Personally, I don't think we'll attack them, and Israel might not either, and Iran will get the bomb, which I feel will leave us in a worse situation than attacking and taking all the heat over it will.