"Awww no, not Hans Brix!" as Kim Jong Il says in "Team America". Great film, especially if you aren't too keen on ole' Dubbyah.
Thing is, Iran has significantly more developed, better equipped armed forces than Iraq did, according to "the internet" (and we all know how reliable it is
)
Now assuming that is correct, we could undoubtedly kick their Salman Rushdie-hating bottoms, but it would be a real headache for us and the US. Lots dead on all three sides (us, them and the civilians), lots of big bangs. Not to mention the fact that they would hate us for several generations and this hatred would possibly stir up greater trouble later on.
I for one don't like the idea of nukes in the hands of a religious-fundamentalist nutter. But enough about Dubbyah
... do we really want a situation where a potentially dangerous country such as Iran, ends up with nuclear weaponry? Especially when "the internet" also claims they are working on ballistic missiles with 1000 mile range. Sure, we aren't within that distance of Tehran, and I would hope even the Ayatollah wouldn't want to start WW3. But it is kinda like laying out your wedding tackle on the table, and letting a maniac who hates you, sit opposite you with a 4lb hammer "On condition you don't use it". It isn't a clever situation to be in.
I'm pretty sure that marching into Iran wouldn't really solve a lot though. I think the way around this one is either
1) Make it a
bad thing for Iran, for Iran to have powerful weapons (the trade embargo method), or
2) Make it a
good thing for Iran, for Iran to
NOT have powerful weapons (the "North Korea" method
).
However, last time we tried to persuade an insane regime against developing nuclear weapons, France irradiated half the Pacific.