Iran: the proverbial hard place

Iran's been a popular topic on the internets lately. Lots of people are asking what options are left us and the consensus seems to be: not many. The frontrunners so far are sanctions and airstrikes. That's all very nice, but I'd like to see more discussion about the likely consequences of either of these. There seems to be wide agreement that sanctions would be ineffective at deterring Iran from going nuclear. I'd like to see more reasons why this is so. The main quasi-argument so far is just, "Well, didn't work for Saddam. Won't work in Iran." I don't find that particularly convincing. The most plausible argument against pursuing them is, as The Glittering Eye says, "I can’t imagine anything but the most namby-pamby of sanctions being approved by Russia, China, and France and I can’t imagine such sanctions having any effect." The only possible sanctions would be ineffectual.

The airstrikes option seems to exist in a vacuum. People are talking of them as an option to full-blown military incursion. Isn't Iran going to march into at least southern Iraq if we or Israel bomb them? That seems like the logical consequence and it looks an awful lot like a full-blown military conflict. The Glittering Eye is illustrative of what I mean by the vacuum analysis in this regard, though that's certainly not the only place it's going on:

Re-fueling issues aside, Israel simply can’t get to Iran without crossing the airspace of one or more of the following countries: Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Turkey, Russia. I can’t imagine them getting the go-ahead. In addition we have effective control of the airspace over the Gulf. Consequently, Israel needs at least our tacit approval before conducting such a raid. As I see it that means that there’ll be the same political costs for U. S. complicity as there would be for a U. S. raid.

Political costs? How about the cost of open hostilities between the U.S. and Iran? I think political costs are secondary considerations because no one has yet explained to me why Iran wouldn't cross over and begin a more open, more violent, more serious fight with the U.S. military. Whatever its veracity I somehow don't see Iran separating U.S. from Israeli action. The same likely goes for most of the countries around the world. The two seem functionally almost identical.

I'll keep my eyes open. There must be some better ideas out there somewhere.