You've got it right, DD.  Problem is, our nation is so divided I'm not sure we can do the things that are necessary to defend it.   

DD - That is one possible way to solve the problem. Politically, only a Democratic President could take such action without tearing the nation apart. Can you imagine what the left and the Democratic Congress would do to McCain if he took any such action? Just as it had to be a devoted anti-communist like Nixon to open relations with China, It would have to be a liberal Democrat that takes such unilateral action against Iran. Even then it would create a massive rift in the Democratic party, with the ideologist at war with the pragmatist. With the above considerations I can see little chance of any such action unless Iran did something monumentally stupid and provocative. Of course, given the government they have, anything is possible.

caveman - Negotiation and diplomacy are fine when both sides have something to gain by a peaceful resolution. When you are dealing with people who want your destruction and are willing to die to achieve that end it leaves very little to negotiate. The UN and western powers have been negotiating with Iran on this issue for years, with little change in Iran's behavior. If I was the government of Iran, I would love to negotiate with you. I would negotiate forever, I would talk, and talk, and talk, until I had a nice little stockpile of bombs and a delivery system. I would then tell the world to go to h_ _ _!

A major weakness of western politicians of all nations and parties is their idea that reasonable people can come to reasonable agreements and thus solve all disputes via negotiation. This falls apart when you are dealing with people driven by emotion and hate rather than reason. When a man comes to your house because he thinks that God told him to kill you and he will spend the rest of eternity in paradise with the services of dozens of beautiful virgins if he does so, you have little room for negotiation.

At what point should the President who followed your path decide that diplomacy was not working? What would your fall back decision be? I am not being argumentative, I really want to know what you thinking is on this subject.

Nuculear Weapons are bad.

I'm almost embarrassed to be an American. We are such bullies. Who are we to go take away Iran's stuff? Stop the bloodshed. The government should mind their own business and their government cheese. Stay out of other countries business, etc............................................................

I have no reason to be ashamed, I voted democrat both times.  I do enjoy the people that voted for Bush in 04 and now try to make excuses for why they did it. In 04 they were all so gung ho about being in a war and the level of patriotism filled their veins so much that they could no use proper judgement.

Anti- Bush rants may be fun for Bush haters but as such add nothing to a discussion about what the next President should do about Iran. Perhaps you should start an I hate Bush forum so  that you can  talk to each other so that the rest of us can discuss the topic at hand.

By Iran's stuff I assume you are referring to any nuclear weapons that they may produce. I find it bemusing that in the same post you say "Stop the bloodshed" and also oppose preventing a nation ,that has a record of supporting and arming terrorist and has announced that its goal is to destroy Israel, from gaining nuclear weapons. I wonder who you would blame if the next President does nothing (mind our own business) and in a few years Tel Aviv and a few 100,000 people become radioactive dust. Would you be proud or embarrassed to be an American if such a thing happened? Just what do you think will happen if a nation that thinks it is its holy duty to destroy Israel and that hates our liberal western traditions, gets the bombs and missiles that it is working so hard to develop?

If you read the history of Europe in the 1930s you will find that you view was very popular with some in government, the press , and  the universities of Britain and France. They insisted that their governments "mine their own business" when Germany violated treaties, rearmed, occupied the Rhineland and Austria, marched into the Sudetenland, invaded Czechoslovakia, Poland, Norway,  Holland, Denmark, and Belgium. They changed their mind in France when the German army marched into Paris. They changed there minds in Britain when they had to sleep in bomb shelters. If they had acted in the early 30s, Britain and France could have stopped Hitler with very little effort. But as Hitler himself said "There is no will in Europe only submission". Sadly it seems that there is little will in the West today to protect Western ideals.