While I welcome a conclusion on the part of someone who is not a "trigger-happy yahoo on the wilder fringes of America's Republican Party" that Iran "must not be allowed" to develop nuclear weapons, this commentator falls right back into full-speed dithering when it comes to discussing the means, or more precisely the sanctioning of the means. It still comes down to a bunch of UN and NGO wet-nurses gabbling about whether they'll
allow the United States to make a raid on Iranian targets. They'd better think through what they're going to do about what happens next, because unless the Iranian government is decapitated in these raids (and that isn't currently under discussion) then we're going to see an escalation of Iranian hostility that most certainly is going to affect even non-participating countries. This isn't going to be a case of "let's you and he fight."
That is one reason the Chinese in particular aren't playing. They just signed some juicy oil delivery contracts with Iran and would just as soon not see that disturbed even if the rest of the world is obligated to put up with a nuclear-armed set of radical revolutionary Islamists. Their consideration is whether Iran can hurt them more by a nuclear attack or by cutting off oil supplies. The answer might not be what you'd think.
When asked what was going to happen about the mexican influx into Texas, and what America would do... My best answer was that Texas may wind up like Belgium, stuck between france and Germany. Or maybe something like Belgium on steriods, kicking out at both north and south of our borders.
On the Iran question... I suspect that some Americans may wind up dead in a nuclear explosion. And if that happens, my historical reference would be Adm. Yamamoto's quote. As an example of an understatement.
Middle America won't put up with that kind of BS. Rattle sabers, we're busy working... Yell and demonstrate... we're busy growing food to feed your third world @$$.
But... p!$$ us off? Nuke 'em till they glow, shoot 'em in the dark.
/johnny