I don't think anyone is concerned about a symmetrical war... if we did go to throws, it would be asymmetrical, correct? .
I think, that it would be over rather quick, if it were to happen, although I certainly hope it doesn't.
Right now, they have the luxury of time and stability if you will, to assist those in Iraq, that assistance would probably go by the way side rather quickly, within days.
I suppose the question is, what is the lesser of two evils.
Is it: Iran having a deliverable nuclear weapon, which will completely change the powerstructure in the ME. Obviously, the credible threat of a US attack is diminished immensely, they will always be able to threaten a nuclear attack as a response, doubt the US is willing to use nukes again unless it is due to a nuclear attack on US soil.
Or is the lesser of two evils to attack Iran now, before they aquire the weapon, knowing how far we are already stretched in Iraq/Afghanistan?
The Israelis might be able to accomplish the goal, but who knows what the response of Iran and the other ME countries will be. If Israel fails, it only makes them so much more likely to be attacked with nuke, probably one of the first of the Iranian assembly line.
I read some retired general making a statement to the effect, that if Iran wants the bomb, they will aquire it and to start thinking about how to live with that reality.
If Iran was in the darkest africa and they didn't have oil, then things would be different, but they are not. Iran sits in a very powerfull position location wise, straits of Hormuz and they are the second largest oil producer, I think, this has the potential of getting really ugly, really fast.