LBS - I’m not merely being a humanist here, but also a pragmatist.

Let's simplify to examining bombing or diplomacy. Here is a typical story regarding those efforts...
http://www.cfr.org/publication/10231/sanctions_bedevil_iran_diplomacy.html

The Iranians have thrown out inspectors and thumbed their nose at diplomats from both the EU and UN. What exactly do you think we have to offer that would bribe them to abandon their nuclear program? And let's be clear here, it is bribery.

If an arrangement WERE to be made, what then makes you think they would keep their part of the bargain? The North Koreans didn't and the Iranians kept part of their program secret as well. Are these people known for their honesty?

Also regarding diplomacy I've seen a number of people try to diminish Ahmadinejad as blowhard and frontman, but they apparently don't have the curiosity to ask why the real power would let their guy threaten Israel with extinction. I'm afraid that pragmatically, any agreement would be entered only to continue working unimpeded. But why even do that? There is no one getting in their way now, and can anyone honestly name anything Iran wants more than it's nuclear program? Not me.

As for bombing, I have no doubt it would be an arduous task and innocent lives lost. No thing in war is sanitary. It would be ugly and repercussions wideranging. Quite frankly it would be less disturbing to the rest of the world to have Israel wiped out. Many would cheer it.

The real question remains at the end of all and any conjecture... are you personally willing to risk Israel and all it's inhabitants against the proposition that Iran doesn't really mean what it says about genocide?
The answer to that one, is the indicator of what direction one pursues in this conflict.

You're asking for proof of a hypothetical negative. Something that is impossible. That's like asking for proof that I will never build a rocket in my backyard and fly to Mars with it.

Granted, one can never say never, which leaves probabilities of something happening. If you're an average guy I'd wager a fair sum that you won't build a rocket and fly to Mars.

Saddam's getting the bomb was about as likely as my building that rocket.

And you know that how exactly? More to the point, you would have known that in 1981 how, exactly?

Life entails risk. There is no such thing as perfect security, only acceptable risk.

Quite so, and a large part of measuring risk is the value of what one is risking. In this case, it is a nations survival against your assessment of Saddam's ability to beg, borrow, or invent a nuke. Perhaps you should consider that Israel has everything on the line and you don't. Needless to say their evaluation of the risk is much more consequential than yours. They traded an uncomfortable degree of probability for a much lower almost non-existent probability. In a life and death situation, I'd say that's prudent.

-- bucky1
We like deterrence. Israel likes deterrence. Are you saying that Iranians (Persians) are sub-human and can not want a weapon for the mere deterrence value?

Sub-human? Tsk. As for deterrence, deterrence of who exactly? Us? The Israelis? And this deterrence would be delivered how exactly? The problem with that idea is that the public face of Iran won't shut up about killing jews. That definitely doesn't sound like wanting a WMD for deterrence to me.

If Iran is using nuclear power to generate electricity as they have always claimed; that is legal under the treaties they signed but Israel refuses to sign.

Do people that are pursuing nuclear power for peaceful purposes tend to threaten their neighbors with extinction? How about the aiding of Hezbollah in attacking said neighbor? If Iran wants a nuclear program for strictly peaceful purposes they are doing everything in their power to dissuade the world of peaceful intent.

Does anyone know how much money the USA has given Israel over the decades while they developed 400-600 nukes as compared to how much money we gave Iran while they were not? How does that compare on our spending for the homeless right here in our country? -- bucky1

What? Israel hasn't held us hostage, or bombed our embassy, or killed our soldiers. I have no idea what has been spent on the homeless, but I can say that in the great scheme of things the Israelis are a lot more valuable to our country. But hey, I could easily get on the bandwagon to pull out all our troops and cancel all foreign aid as well.

-- jedimaster
Shooter...You ask about Saddam in 81. You mean when he was fighting Iran using the weapons we gave him? We would've been happy to have him be a nuclear power, and we gave him the tools to do it.

* According to the SIPRI arms transfers database, from 1981 to 2001, the United States was the 11th largest supplier of weapons and arms to Iraq, supplying approximately $200 million of Iraq's weapons imports. The top three suppliers, from 1981 to 2001, were Russia, China and France respectively.[34]
http://www.heritage.org/Research/MiddleEast/wm217.cfm

And according to this site the Iraqi nuclear program didn't commence until 1988 with French and Soviet assistance.
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/iraq/nuke/program.htm

Feel free to provide some research that proves otherwise.

Iraq's ability to get a single nuke is probably as likely now as then and Israel is in much greater danger now that one would be used. Saddam may have been a vile despot, but he wasn't stupid. He'd never have used it as more than a bargaining tool.-- Lynx

Lynx, you are certainly entitled to your opinion, but there is no reason I can consider it more informed than the Israeli government. I'll stick with their assessment over yours.