"If I read this post right, you are stating that the only plausible option, assuming there even IS one at all at this point, for dealing with Iran is threatening, and perhaps eventually carrying out, a full-scale regime-change invasion like we did with Iraq and Afghanistan."

Credible force has to be plausible in a negotiation with hostile states. HOWEVER, keep in mind that I'm not saying 'GO FORTH AND INVADE', but I think thats the only level of military threat that would get a rise out of Iran, and lacking that has a VERY deleterious effect on negotiations (especially when we are also refusing to offer incentives).

"On the other hand, if the threat we have to make to get results is full regime change, which makes political resistance largely irrelevant* then your statements hold up.

Notice that one of my premises is that Iran has 'geared up' for airstrikes as a response to its nuclear program (Israel has a long and distinguished history of 'de-commissioning' nuclear reactors), and is under no illusions here. Threatening to do what they have planned for and expect is not a very motivating threat, its just going through the motions. You have to be able to threaten and carry out something that they can't absorb and use to their advantage to have a 'stick' in the negotiation.

We saw, however, that that same threat didn't seem to get Saddam to cave in."

Apples and oranges again. And all arguments aside about what Saddam could do since we were all convinced he had WMD, and he had none to 'cave in' and give up.

"Is that what we're left with in Iran? That nothing else will work except actually occupying yet another country? Along with the political fallout of that action in Europe, the Middle East, and the rest of the world?"

No, but in a negotiation you don't get anywhere with no carrot and no stick. I would look at war as a *real* last resort, and only after the rest of the world was aligned, and only after the charges were proven.

"It's nice to know that if we had invaded Iran instead of Iraq, you at least would have supported it. I wonder how many other Democrats and liberals would have felt the same way."

No, I would not endorse that as a blanket statement. I would support the implicit threat of force, together with diplomacy and incentives, to get them to reel in their nuke program. I would support the escalation of that threat if absolutely necessary, leading to total war and regime change as a last resort and only with the right documentation of threat and wider consensus.

With no tools to cary out diplomacy- of course diplomacy will fail!

As it is, I bet Iran tripled its nuclear efforts the moment we crossed into Iraq. They know what the score is, the problem is out administration doesn't. We threw away our negotiating tools blindly and stupidly for something that didn't matter, make sense, or do anything for us.

Davin L.