Care to place a bet?
There's a high cost to stopping them; but less than not stopping them.
The Bush adminstration doesn't have the political capital to afford that high cost. They spent it on Iraq. You're not going to see Congressional support for attacking Iran.
I'm not arguing with you. But I am curious what you do see unfolding in Iran. Let's for the moment take your assumption at face value- Iran will develop a bomb and there's nothing we can do about it at the moment. Ok, what then?
Do you think they'll use it? How do you think a nuclear Iran will change the regional power struggle for both the neighboring countries and for us in the West? Do you see a nuclear Iran as a threat at all?
Again, I'm not arguing. Just curious. You seem like you've given the matter a little bit of thought and I would like to learn how you have this situation extrapolated into the coming years. Food for thought sort of thing.
Yeah, I'd bet Iran won't have a bomb. They'll be stopped prior if necessary.
There's more than Israel at stake though Israel may be the stopper of last resort.
An attack on Iran may come from many places, NATO even. And it would not be the same as the Iraq campaign involving ground and occupying forces. A much briefer campaign, involving a great deal less risk.
There'd be more congressional support than you think, IMHO. And, if it came to it, Bush would not need congressional approval anyway.