[GrandEagle]

There have been all sorts of angles that I have though of, not the least of which is the fact that we (the US) are not very good at fighting a terrorist style war. The guerrilla "hit and run" tactics have always gotten to us. I think it is because we are basically a humane people. The Islamo fanatics don't care if they kill their own women, children, and innocents. On the other hand, we do. That puts us at a great disadvantage and they know it.
I agree with your comments about nationalism in the area. A first strike in Iran would most likely invoke that nationalism not only in Iran but elsewhere in the region.
(getting ready for the flaming) That is one reason why I was and still am, opposed to the preemptive strike philosophy that we have adopted. Before that, all the wackos knew where the line was. They could rant and rave all they wanted, but they dare not actually attack where we knew it was them. Unfortunately though, with our new strategy it is all guesswork and opinion who gets attacked. That makes the weaker countries much more jumpy and like a wounded dog, very dangerous.
There is no doubt at all that we can win an all out war - but what would we really win? We would be out of money, our of friends, and out of what little influence we still have.

Cordially,
GE

[floridaobserver]

The best thing would be to do an aerial attack, targeting the main nuclear facilities AND the main seat of the Theocracy.

No ground troops at all. Let the Iranians sort everything out.

Does Bush have the cajones to do this? And will Congress give him prior approval?