I’m not saying don’t use military force on Iran, but go in with open eyes to the consequences. Most of this is from one of my posts yesterday:
1) If Bush prepared to act without Congressional authority, his opposition in State, the Pentagon or where ever would blow the whistle. Democrats would try to force him to seek their approval. If he refused, they’d try to paralyze the government. I don’t know if they could succeed, but Bush’s MO is to find compromise when confronted by political division.
2) If Bush presses Congress for the authority to conduct an air campaign, Democrats will try to rally a majority against his unwillingness to exhaust diplomatic options. I don’t know if they’ll achieve a majority, but it will be close.
3) If Bush spends another two years exhausting diplomatic options, Democrats will probably stand 100% united against a new military campaign in an election year, likely pulling in a few Republicans to capture the majority. I think this one's a no-go.
4) As all this transpires and we prepare for war, much of the world will take advantage of our vulnerability and work to isolate us and profit from defending Iran, the Middle East or anyone who feels they're on our target list.
5) The effect on Iraqi stabilization could go either way. Will Iran’s inability to stir things up out way the Shia majority’s anger at Shia deaths, even if they are not Arabs.
6) When a nation falls into chaos, extremist usually thrive and dominate. We may be able to remove their nukes, but without civilizing what remains, we can’t find and destroy their bio.
This is just just off the top of my head, certainly not a complete list and there are certainly offsetting political advantages and dynamics that can’t be predicted, but at least this much needs to be accounted for when weighing our options with Iran.