How an attack would unfold: A military assault on nuclear plants in Iran

remains an option for U.S.

.. "The evidence is overwhelming that plans have not only been dusted off, but they are at the White House," Gardiner said. "The president believes that he has got to do this." ..

"There's no difference between bombing one site and bombing 1,000 sites, politically," said Andrew Teekell, a security analyst at Stratfor, a private intelligence consultant.

The most likely option, in the view of many experts, is a campaign of air strikes limited in time and breadth, but enough to significantly delay or destroy Iran's nuclear program.

Analysts disagree on the wisdom of such an attack. But there is broad agreement that the U.S. military has the ability to strike nearly at will against the outdated Iranian defense, even if it must do so alone, but there is also agreement that the effectiveness of a bombing campaign is uncertain, and that the possible consequences of such action could be wide-ranging, long lasting and unpleasant ..

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/10/01/ING9ULB4N11.DTL

A faked attack against the USS Enterprise aircraft carrier, blamed on Iran

Ya think?

mr. bush, get a grip! Bombing people only makes them more resiliant. The Afghan people have been bombed for thirty years, they have 92% of the world's poppies and the Taliban is stronger than ever.
80% of the Iraqi people hate us.

at the moment he has a completely compliant congress....

and how will the world react to another overt act of unilateral aggression by the chimperor?

Could they be that Stupid?

Of course they are. They invented stupid and evil.

only option and quotes heavily from USAF related sources. Not real credible these days.

.. are popping up, suggesting continuing WH pressure, to attack Iran.

clueless. I attribute nothing to them and their frequency has been fairly constant, as political filler if nothing else.