[kabar]

On the other hand, I don't agree that we could not severely disrupt their nuclear ambitions just because we might not destroy each and every target.

Interrupt, not eliminate and such a bombing may strengthen the hand of the mullahs. The reality is that Iran could buy nuclear weapons or nuclear materials using its considerable oil wealth. North Korea or disaffected scientists from Pakistan or the former Soviet Union could jump start their nuclear program.

The Iranians are struggling for cash, destruction of much or most of their nuclear buildings just might be the blow that stops them all together.

Or it may consolidate the hold on power of the current regime and squash domestic oppostion because the homeland has been attacked by the West. And what would such an attack have on our presence in Iraq and in the region? Or in the Islamic world? Or on our relations with China [a big buyer of Iranian oil], Russia, and Pakistan? Or domestically in the US?

[rodguy911]

I'm not convinced that it would not be good policy to go ahead and bomb all of Iran's nuke making structures and every time they try and rebuild them re-bomb them.

The down side you point out, that they could simply buy them from other terrorist nations is irrelevant since they could do that now.

[MNJohnnie]

Unprovable assumption. The bombing conducted against the Serbs over Kosavo did NOT cause Serbs to rally to the Milosivic Govt.

I suspect it depends on what sort of bombing campaign you follow. For example, I suspect following the sort of targeting parameters the Israelis did in Lebanon (Bridges, Electrical Grids, residential neighborhoods) might have the effect you fear.

However, I suspect direct targeting the leadership cadres, the secret police HQs, the Revolutionary Guards etc while making every effort to avoid directly impacting the civilian infrastructure would have a vastly different impact, especially in a repressive authoritarian state like Iran.