It seems that recent Pentagon simulations regarding the stopping of Iran's production of atomic weapons involve military strikes against the country. More on such war simulations here and here. All I know is that if these war simulations are at all similar to the game Global Power which I have on my PC, then I know how all of this will end: with me losing.
I would support limited strikes against Iran, as it is a clear danger in the region, but it is sobering to think how limited our options are now because of the misguided war in Iraq. David Sanger has the details:
With roughly 130,000 troops stationed in Iraq for a while - and hundreds of thousands more supplying them, training to replace them, or just coming off duty there - Mr. Bush and Ms. Rice lack the kind of flexibility to deal with crises around the world that they had four years ago...
The result is that "we may have maxed out on hawkishness for a while,'' said Daniel Benjamin, who served on the National Security Council under President Clinton and was deeply involved in the first, unsuccessful, efforts to curb Al Qaeda in the 1990's. There will be "many opportunities to sound hawkish'' on North Korea and Iran, said Mr. Benjamin, but Mr. Bush has limited options in both places.
It is difficult to imagine getting many other countries on board. The bright side is that Iran may be coming to its senses on its own.