I've got 4 children. I'm a strong believer in reasoning with children, and if that doesn't work...then TimeOut. For 3 of the 4 children, reasoning and timeout was all that was ever required.(Diplomacy and Sanctions)

The 4th child though...I had to become the "Prick from Hell".

The Iranians remind me of a teenager, demanding to stay out all night, or else they will run away.

Fine...I'll change the locks...and if you try to come back...I'll call the police and have you arrested.(Fine, we'll impose sanctions, and as soon as you start enrichment, we will level your country)

Decisions have consequences.

"That is precisely what needs to happen here. Iran needs to be told, in no uncertain terms, continue on your present course and be prepared to suffer enormous losses."

Agreed - however, the problem as I perceive it is how to conclusively determine that they've opted not to continue on their present course, other than just taking their country (and their nuclear weapons program) away from them.

If recent dealings with radical islamists can be considered instructive, agreements to pause or cease entirely are useful only insomuch as they give the islamists more time to accomplish their goals before the West physically intervenes.

In this specific situation, I believe the Iranian president has made his intentions crystal clear - continued negotiations, whatever their form, have been and will continue to be used as delaying tactics by Iran, in hopes that they can announce a successful nuclear test before we can take decisive action to prevent it.

I'll say it again: Iran intends to go nuclear, and NO negotiations/appeasement/security guarantees will be enough for them to stand down.

The goal is the bomb, and it has nothing to do with their national security.

This is about finally wiping the Jews off the Holy Land - expanding islam into Europe - making the US impotent - and thereby opening the door to spreading jihad unopposed the world over.

Once they have the bomb, their borders will more or less become inviolate, leaving them free to subdue their neighbors, take effective control of Europe, and eventually bring jihad to the US.

How many bombed elementary schools, major sporting events, shopping malls, etc, will we be forced to endure before the domestic pressure on the government becomes such that it will be forced to drop a MIRV somewhere in the middle east (Tehran?).

Ground troops that could've overrun Iran in weeks just a few months ago, would now risk the likelihood of hideous casualties upon crossing the border of a nuclear Iran. Is there any doubt that Iran would nuke our troops within minutes of crossing their border?

"Self-defense!" they'd say. "We are merely protecting our country from American invaders."

No matter how you slice it, this thing will likely get real ugly real soon. Either we do what must be done militarily now, or we'll be forced to do it later, at a cost of many, many, many more lives, Iranian and American.

It is morally bankrupt to continue this charade. Everyday that passes without action increases the potential casualty rate - this cannot be allowed to happen.

The time to act is now, alone if necessary.

First, fill the sky with predators - watch for convoys of trucks. Second, lock down their air space. No one flies in nor out. Then give Iran's government one week to open EVERY site to US inspectors - if their use of nuclear power is genuinely for peaceful purposes (power generation), there should be NO problems with complying- make it known that failure to agree to and act according to these terms will trigger military action.

They will refuse to comply. They simply can't show us everything because the application to nuclear weapons in may cases will be forehead slapping obvious.

After one week is up, invade in force (land and air).

...And pray.

Triton

The most credible estimates say that iran is 10 years from a working bomb.

Can you think of any reason they'd act like they have been, if they're 10 years from a bomb?

If you can't think of any, then you've limited your thinking to the point you'll believe they're about to get a bomb.

But then, suppose that they're 10 years from a bomb and we attack them. Then we can have a *successful* attack. We can say that we stopped their nuclear program.

While if we attack when they're only months from a bomb, there's the chance that the attack will be unsuccessful and they'll get a bomb anyway. That would look very very bad to the US public.

So it's far far safer to attack iran if they actually aren't anywhere near to having a bomb. We can do airstrikes on a bunch of places, and afterwards we can say we destroyed their nuclear sites. If anybody asks where's the proof, we can say they had nuclear sites that were buried deep, deep underground but we destroyed them. Ask the iranians if they'll let you dig down and find the proof.

Surgeons find they get the best survival rates if they do all their operations on patients who're completely healthy. The sicker somebody is the more likely they'll die and damage the surgeon's statistics....

Maybe it works the same way with surgical strikes.

Speaking of unpredictable, I noticed that the French today said that Iraq's nuclear program is for military purposes.

If the French are noticing a problem, it's time to pray.

Oops, finger trouble...Iran.