I largely agree. Nation building rarely works. It's easier to start a war than to end one. The analogy is what does the barking dog do when he finally catches the car.
Diplomacy (which seems to be largely a thing of the past) is valuable in and of itself. If two sides continue talking, even if they don't both live up to their agreement, it's still better than war and some information is learned on both sides.
The only argument, that I can see, for attacking Iran proper, is just to send a message, as the US did in Libya by attacking Kadafi's house when he was sponsoring much of the terrorists acts in Western Europe. He pretty much backed off after that.
If there is going to be any attack of Iran it would mainly be because they aren't a nuclear power yet and it would be to stop them from becoming one.
Of course taking any such coarse of action shouldn't be taken lightly. Which is why I said I largely agree with you but just was curious as to your specific views.
Vietnam and Iraq were stupid wars and although Afghanistan had to be entered, it didn't have to turn into a 20 year attempt at nation building that was never going to be successful.
The only potentially valid reason to attack Iran (at any point in time) would be to prevent it from being another nuclear power, IMO. If we could wind the clock back and prevent the USSR from becoming a nuclear power then Russia would now be nothing but a thorn in our side (not that winding the clock back would have prevented it either in reality). North Korea would probably be a better example.
