Checking Iran

Today's editorial in The New York Times, "There’s Only One Way to Stop Iran," surprised me. It recommends bombing Iran's nuclear facilities.

Since Pres. Ahmadinejad rejected Pres. Obama's proposal, the editorial asserts, "the United States faces a stark choice: military air strikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities or acquiescence to Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons."

The editorial goes on to reason:

history suggests that military strikes could work. Israel’s 1981 attack on the nearly finished Osirak reactor prevented Iraq’s rapid acquisition of a plutonium-based nuclear weapon and compelled it to pursue a more gradual, uranium-based bomb program. A decade later, the Persian Gulf war uncovered and enabled the destruction of that uranium initiative, which finally deterred Saddam Hussein from further pursuit of nuclear weapons (a fact that eluded American intelligence until after the 2003 invasion). Analogously, Iran’s atomic sites might need to be bombed more than once to persuade Tehran to abandon its pursuit of nuclear weapons.

What would the consequences of this course of action be? Anti-Americanism is mentioned, but that is hard to measure, and it seems to wax and wane no matter what we do (this is my reasoning). The editorial speculates, "Iran could retaliate by aiding America’s opponents in Iraq and Afghanistan, but it does that anyway."

The editorial's final statement:

Negotiation to prevent nuclear proliferation is always preferable to military action. But in the face of failed diplomacy, eschewing force is tantamount to appeasement. We have reached the point where air strikes are the only plausible option with any prospect of preventing Iran’s acquisition of nuclear weapons. Postponing military action merely provides Iran a window to expand, disperse and harden its nuclear facilities against attack. The sooner the United States takes action, the better.

I want to agree with this prescription, but I'm wary. The U.S. military is overextended as it is.
What if the bombing then led to further obligatory actions? I think it would be best if we could at least wait until we were totally removed from Iraq.