And then? The UNSC discusses it? They continue to build. A harshly-worded resolution? They continue to build. International sanctions? They continue to build.
Frankly I don't see military activity in the form of air raids working either given what we now know about the Iranian tunnels. And Israel and the United States aren't going to do a preemptive nuclear strike. Checkmate.
There are a number of people who are just sure that a nuclear Iran is a healthy counterbalance to U.S. hegemony. Inasmuch as most of them are at a much closer range to Iran than the U.S. is that may prove to be an inconvenient point of view. Once Iran does go nuclear we will be in a Mutually Assured Destruction relationship between them and Israel. With the U.S. there won't be anything "mutual" about the assured destruction. Same with Great Britain, Russia, and China, and that's about it.
I tend to agree. Unless we have men on the ground the probability of taking out Iran's nuke capability is pretty slim. But I'm not completely discounting the possibility of us putting men on the ground. .....spec ops with a narrowly defined mission, not a full-scale occupation/police action.
Once Iran does go nuclear we will be in a Mutually Assured Destruction relationship between them and Israel. With the U.S. there won't be anything "mutual" about the assured destruction.
Certainly not initially. But once they get ICBMs (and it's just a matter of time) and build enough warheads, the U.S. won't be in quite as invulnerable a position. Hopefully our ABM technology can make some strides. ....quickly.
Another concern is Iran's Islamist gov't giving (relatively) small warheads to terrorists, of course.