I’d like to add a few comments:
“Can the US prevent the Strait of Hormuz from being blocked?” No, not if blocking it is one of Iran’s primary objectives during the opening phases of conflict.

“Does Iran have sleeper cells in Western countries and how much havoc could they initiate?” Yes, and they could initiate a great deal of havoc.

Iran is a capable foe. They would be able to hurt us, even perhaps bloody us. But I have to ask, why should that matter? We can absorb anything they can do. In fact, were Iran to take these actions – and on our soil or friendly ally soil – it would solidify American support for regime change against these religious madmen. And it would lead to a worldwide purge of Hezbollah, which would be a notable improvement.

No one on our side is fomenting rabidly about wiping any other country off the face of the earth, involving mass genocide of millions. Someday, when and if the world ever becomes civilized, a nation acting as Iran has been acting would already be an international pariah. I’m probably a Pollyanna. “He may be a murderous, genocidal madman, but he’s OUR murderous, genocidal madman”, as China is currently doing vis-a-vis Iran, solely to counter US influence, is probably the way it will always be.

My only hope is that our flow of support (money and weapons?) into Iran, for the purpose of destabilization, brings our freaky mullahs to their senses before it is too late, before real war breaks out, with all of the bad consequences that war always brings.

What ifs are fine, as long as you include “What if we (U.S. and/or Israel) don’t?” – Bill Smith

As apprehensive as I am about the outcome of an Israeli strike, a nuclear equipped Iran is unthinkable in my estimation for the reasons cited.

I see one other factor at play here–if Livni is the one who succeeds Olmert, we will see no change in Israeli policy (i.e,, inaction). If anything, she would be even more “dovish” than Olmert is.

Insofar as how Israel’s relations with the U.S. would change under a Barack Obama Administration, I think that the BEST case scenario would be a return to the cool relations between the two countries during the Bush 41 Administration. Potentially, we could see a situation where the U.S. would cut off all military and economic aid to Israel, as an earlier comment noted.

What ifs are fine, as long as you include “What if we (U.S. and/or Israel) don’t?”

In several of the fine movies on the Normandy Invasion, the commanders are seen agonizing over the terrible weather forecasts; wait another month for the optimal tides, and risk the Invasions true objective being discovered, plus thousands of other things, or go now? As we all know. Rather than risk discovery, and those other things, consequences “too terrible to contemplate,” Ike said, “We go.” More recently, some other brave souls said, “Let’s roll.”

You study the cards you have, the cards you know your enemy has, and probably has, his stated intentions, his history, and, when you can do nothing else — and when doing nothing (which is a purposeful action) is about to become not doing anything (passive, fearful, frozen inaction) — you MUST act.

People say a lot of things. Israel’s taking out of Iraq’s Osirak reactor was roundly — and kneejerkily — condemned in the 80s, but all honest observers now agree it was absolutely necessary.

In the early days of JFK’s presidency we had The Cuban (Soviet) Missile Crisis which was brought on by JFK’s disgraceful IN-action during the earlier Bay of Pigs invasion. Inaction emboldens your enemies. Thank God JFK got a clue in a hurry, and let Nikita Sergeivich know unequivcocally that those missile sites, and the ships bringing more missiles would be destroyed. Yes, I know about the secret deal, too, which was a sop to the Soviets. What happened publicly is what matters.

CARTHAGO DELENDA EST

The world’s leading state sponsor of terror must not be allowed to acquire the ultimate weapon of terror. If the world continues to ignore this threat, then it must understand that Israel has no alternative but to defend its right to exist, and the lesson of the Holocaust, Never Again, may be implemented very soon.

We’ve all read the scenarios that has Israel attacking between November and January, especially if Obama is president-elect.
I sympathize with the position Israel is in– with the prospect of only ‘the least of bad choices’.
Can Israel take down enough of the Iran’s nuclear infrastructure?
My son, recently returned from Iraq, believes Israel could occupy and hold a forward operating airfield in Iran long enough to make sustained attacks on Iran’s facilities.
Can the US prevent the Strait of Hormuz from being blocked?
At the narrowest point, the shipping lanes are only two miles wide. It would probably mean US strikes inside Iran. If the strait is blocked, it is estimated 20% of total world supplies would be cut off. Iran may not take this action, since it would also cut off it’s oil shipments.
Does Iran have sleeper cells in Western countries and how much havoc could they initiate?
Is this the unknown?
If Israel attacks, and oil spikes to $200-300 a barrel, the wrath of the west, including, I fear, the US will come down on not Iran, but Israel. If, at the height of the projection of US military power in Iraq, enemies of America were able to create enough fear to prevent us from using that power to elicit concessions from Iran and Syria, it’s unlikely we’ll have the fortitude to weather the uncertainty of a stand-off with Iran now.
An attack plus an Obama presidency could permenantly change US-Israel relations.
I pray this is merely idle speculation.

If you have ever studied the nomadic steppe lifestyle compared to the civilized societies of Constantinople or Rome, you would realize an interesting comparison to modern times.

Civilizations have inherent limitations in them, whether the technology is 21st century or 6th century. Civilizations need towns. Nomads don’t. They can burn all your towns down and not have to fear for their own people.

Compare this to terrorism, where we have to obey rules and the terrorists don’t. But people always forget, terrorists have families, cities, and parades of their own that can be bombed, strafed, and nuked. Just like we do.

Our ancestors had a good excuse. They could not combat the nomadic lifestyle that made every able bodied man into a horse archer and cavalry man. We don’t.

Somebody is brandishing a gun. Maybe he’s holding it on a hostage, maybe not. You try to talk him out of it, to put the gun down, to be reasonable. You make every effort to save the life of the perpetrator, but, ultimately, your obligation is ALSO to save the lives of others.

To be sure, there have been times when cops have been too trigger happy IMO, but then, I wasn’t there; they were. But, restraint is the guiding principal.

However, when a perpetrator is still brandishing a weapon, repeated negotiations have failed, the perp has made, and continues to make threats, to kill, he leaves you no choice. You have to act.

Negotiations are meant to prevent shooting. You don’t wait until he shoots to conclude that negotiations aren’t going to work.

No matter what you do, people are going to say you were wrong. ESPECIALLY if you fired “first.” The real questions are who created the situation, and have you done everything possible to end the clear and present threat?

If you didn’t create the situation — and merely having been born, and living on the same street as the perp does not qualify as creating — and you’ve tried every reasonable negotiation, then your obligation is to end the threat, not indulge it.

Every fire chief in the US has the legal right to blow up, bull doze, or otherwise remove a structure that presents a larger threat of spreading fire to the larger community. He, or she should not, indeed can not wait until it catches fire. Then it’s usually too late. If the whole town burns down because the chief was afraid to do the only thing he/she knows has the best REMAINING chance to end the threat, well…

Old saying: Never let the Perfect be the Enemy of the Good. That is, waiting for perfect conditions is often not perfect behavior; it’s not even good. It very likely will become the evil you were trying to prevent.

As to the current situation, at some point the people of Iran must bear responsibility for the actions of their leaders, however innocent each of them individually may be. If your house is a fire threat to the neighborhood, it matters not at all how good, and decent you are. Leave your house, because it must be destroyed, and will be destroyed.