Although US or Israeli attacks would severely damage Iranian nuclear and missile programmes, Iran would have many methods of responding in the months and years that followed. These would include disruption of Gulf oil production and exports, in spite of US attempts at pre-emption, systematic support for insurgents in Iraq, and encouragement to associates in Southern Lebanon to stage attacks on Israel. There would be considerable national unity in Iran in the face of military action by the United States or Israel, including a revitalised Revolutionary Guard.
One key response from Iran would be a determination to reconstruct a nuclear programme and develop it rapidly into a nuclear weapons capability, with this accompanied by withdrawal from the Non-Proliferation Treaty. This would require further attacks. A military operation against Iran would not, therefore, be a short-term matter but would set in motion a complex and long-lasting confrontation. It follows that military action should be firmly ruled out and alternative strategies developed.
Although I find that kind of forward thinking tedius. Why reason out the possibilities that would arise from an attack on Iran when we have Bush's gut to make the decision. You know the gut I'm talking about. The same gut that told him forty-plus years of being an alcoholic, cocaine-addicted layabout would be a good thing.
(NOTE: I was going to use the "Cats and Dogs sleeping together" quote but couldn't find a good pick of Bill talking to the mayor.)