[nuconvert]

Any sanctions will be up to Security council. Iran is dependent on goods from the outside.

This would be for "show' and nothing more. To "show' other countries of the U.N. that the U.S. is playing by the 'rules'.
Since the regime doesn't care about the people, they don't really care about sanctions. But they will try to turn sentiments of the people against us if sanctions are imposed. Don't think that will be very effective. That could be a time that the populace really tries to take over.
Or we could be forced to take the next step. Or both.

[Don Joe]

Since the regime doesn't care about the people, they don't really care about sanctions. But they will try to turn sentiments of the people against us if sanctions are imposed. Don't think that will be very effective. That could be a time that the populace really tries to take over.

It could just as easily backfire, and turn the populace against us. Right now, the Iranian populace is amazingly pro-USA. If they suddenly can't feed their kids (and it won't be hard for the mullahs to "pull a stalin" and starve them, and blame "the sanctions"), their sentiments may change. There's nothing like a "common enemy" (real, or fabricated by the mullahs) to "bring people together".

We may be setting ourselves up for another lesson in the futility of the Powell Doctrine.

"Jaw, jaw, jaw," may be better than, "war, war, war," but that's only when the two options are mutually exclusive. Churchill dropped plenty of bombs on Germany. That's bombs, not leaflets.

The worst possible scenario would be a combination of the US playing a game of "don't make us warn you again -- because we will, if we have to," and pretend-sanctions, that give the mullahs room to strongarm their populace into turning against us.