No. Sanctions probably wouldn't work. As with most authoritarian countries, shortages are dealt with simply by eliminating supplies for the lower classes. Still, Iran has a pretty hefty middle class, so who knows? And at least it might be useful as a sign that the U.N. isn't just dancing around the maypole for appearances' sake.

But if nothing is done at all?

So, we have a nation building nuclear weapons that has all but announced, in so many words, their intentions to wipe out Israel.

We are back in the old "pre-emptive" argument again, aren't we?

Does somebody finally use force to settle this before the bombs are built? It's been established right up front that this will not be an easy proposition--no illusions here--and it will be at least as big a pain in the ass as Iraq is for whatever nation or international force takes this on.

Conversely, by the conventional standards of foreign policy, we sit back and wait for the atomic war. THEN we can do something. That "something" is likely to turn out no easier than the pre-emptive solution.

The latter course is attractive to organizations like the U.N. Annan is not going to lose his job if the Middle East dissolves into radioactive hell, is he? "Expressions of regret, horror, etc. etc. Stamp that and get it in the mail."

But if something proactive is done, then there's blame to go around, isn't there?

I wish I had an easy answer. I know that "business as usual" isn't working any more for places like Iran and North Korea, and wouldn't have worked in Iraq for more that a few more years, either.