War with Iran is probably our best option

Despite my general rational and liberal bias, this is probably almost correct. However, a limited war is not rational alternative. There have been multiple limited wars since 1945. In no significant case has the US emerged a a victor. The thought that air strikes against known targets could succeed is just wishful thinking. Winning a war means the total subjugation of the enemy. In the case of a war with Iran it means more than destroying a few nuclear facilities, or just a few million boots on the ground. It most likely requires nuclear annihilation of large swaths of the Middle East that have any remnants of Shiite sympathy, followed by an overwhelming force of boots on the ground. The US would need to do what Nazi Germany did to Europe, or what Japan did in the East before WWII - and then hope that that a powerful force (like China or Russia) would not take the opportunity to retaliate against the US, both in the Middle East and on US soil. I do not believe that the US electorate has the stomach for that, despite the posturing of the right wing pols. So, it may be our best option - but it is not going to happen. We must take our second best option - keep negotiating.

See: http://wpo.st/W-F90 Cross-posted from Facebook via IFTTT