I agree with the total destruction of their plant and infrastructure, the sooner the better, so they don't scatter it around a la WMD in Iraq.
But it is not necessary to use nukes to do this, just a whole lot of conventional ordnance, such as daisy-cutters and JDAMS.
Why the finnickiness? Nukes are a threshold, largely psychological, that we don't want to ANYONE to cross. Dresden showed how conventional ordnance can accomplish the same thing.
Plus, we want to keep the oil spoils clean once we own Iran.
Talk about the energy crisis being over! Ten cent a gallon gasoline again. And the US as a member of OPEC.
Now you're talking.
I love words like Dasiy-cutter and Thermobaric, almost as much as the smell of Napalm in the morning.
This is precisely why nukes should be used. We have yet to demonstrate that we really are serious about the issue of jihad, and it will never cease getting worse until we do.
No need to use the huge 50 megaton variety, but tactical ones on all military and government sites that are hardened, or too large to be dealt with by conventional weapons.
Think of the salutory effect it would instantly have on Syria's behavior, and we could also then credibly demand Pakistan give up their nukes before Musharraf gets deposed by a jihadi fanatic.