I do agree that politicians of all stripes are a little to eager to suggest military action to enhance their stature among the military chauvinist voters where a more creative solution would be infinitely preferable. If a military strike was truly considered to be the "action of last resort", it would never be used, because it's just a miserably ineffective way to solve any problem.

For instance - does anyone here really think that the best way to deal with Iran's snotty attitude and awful human rights record right now is an airstrike? It's like saying that the best solution to being broke is to go to the movies. It's a non-sequitur.

Of course it's a problem - the belief in a wrathful deity who rewards people in the afterlife is totally incompatible with a nuclear materials program. I'm not saying it isn't a big problem, because it is. But military action is probably the worst possible solution you could pick for that problem. What about a trade embargo? Naval blockade? How about we drop leaflets over Iran saying "if you can find a way out of your country, we'll guarantee you citizenship in the US"? That could create a massive drain of educated skilled workers from Iran. How about we infiltrate their nuclear materials labs with saboteurs? There are a million better solutions, but because so many fuckwit lamebrains get full-on wood when they imagine jets and bombs and fire, a politician will always get a little more cred when they suggest a military strike. They'll get people to vote for them who would never vote for any other reason in a million years, and they are the least qualified voters you could think of.