Heh... I don't think so.
It would be a crazy 'mouse trap' way of doing it, and I think Iran will be 'solved' one way or the other before 2008.
Though a president facing the OBVIOUS and OVERT threat, without the media on his(or her, heh) back for every little thing would almost HAVE to act.
Add in the democrats (properly) percieved weakness in National Security, PLUS if it was... a her... that would just be too much.
Iran would be a cinder.
Though, like I said, I'm sure we can come up with a much better plan that is much more within our control than that 'roadrunner' approach.
Has it occurred to anyone that the lower Bush sinks in th polls and has less to lose, the more likely he will be to bomb Iran?
I'd rather his poll numbes were higher but this may be a silver lining.
I still think a massive destruction by conventional bombing of all military and quasi military locations and some 400,000 of the core elite military personnel will do the job.
Plus burying the nuclear facilities ENTRANCES with precision deep penetration munitions. This would reduce collateral damage as many sites are in populated areas and full destruction rather than simply burying them would kill more civilians.
With the core military and para-military "gone", the people would rise up and take out the Mullahs and their near term priorities would not be to excavate the nuclear sites but to reorganize the country.
For any Freeper involved with real life planning at a higher level, think seriously about this and bring it into the tactical and strategic mix (some action is already under way):
WOMAN POWER and I do NOT mean the MEK cult of Mariam Rajavi, can play a huge, effective part in the aftermath.
I wish I could go into details without giving away what exactly and put lives in danger, but think for yourselves, look at at how the Mullahs organized when they took over and apply the same formula.