1. Iran doesn't have our military capability, but they're not a chopped-liver military force either like what was left of Sadaam's army.  That would be a much bigger fight to pick than many think.  We're basically talking about the second most powerful military force in that region, short of Israel. 

2. Starting a war with Iran will not only mean that we fight, but it means that almost immediately, Iranian missles start flying into Israel.  Conventional ones of course at this point, but missles nonetheless.  That expands the mess.  It's entirely possible that if Israel is unable to win that conflict quickly, other marginal Muslim nations enter the conflict against Israel, sensing opportunity.

3. Forget the conventional military capabilities.  No matter what anyone says, we haven't begun to see any kind of proxy war in Iraq or Afghanistan.  That starts for real if we commit aggression versus Iran.  The danger level increases for our troops in those areas in a large way.  Proxy wars also break out as indicated by increased militant group action in the Palestinian areas of Israel and perhaps even Lebanon.

4. Unless completely wiped out within days Iran shuts down access to the Persian Gulf by hook or by crook, and I'm most worried about outbound access.  If desperate enough, they would be willing to start sinking ships leaving, including Sunni nations' oil tankers as they don't really owe any allegience to them either.  Put it in banner headlines: WORLD OIL CRISIS.

5. With the exception of Israel (which you might assert is not cooperating but rather defending themselves, see point 2) we will again be going it alone, a la the current Iraq conflict.  The rest of the western world is basically 5 steps behind and firmly of the opinion that diplomatic options should be explored with Iran for the time being.  They will NOT lend us any support, even if it got ugly.  It's worth noting that even if it is a very small and unlikely possibility, there still exists the possibility that either Russia, China, or both lend at the very least economic and logistical support to the IRI in the conflict.

6. And perhaps most importantly, we miss now and probably for generations give up the opportunity to utilize one of the most modern, westernized populaces in the region in a better manner than this.  Despite what some may think (and I'm not saying you), Iranians are not burkha-wearing, drooling, brainwashing-school-attending neanderthals.  They are a modern, educated and very young society that is honestly sick of their government but are not armed and capable of revolution, unwilling to risk death, and to some amount mollified by the ease with which they can A)get away with what they want in their daily lives and B)how easy it is for them to leave and go elsewhere.  That's the Iranian government's anti-revolution solution if you ask my honest opinion.  Let the malcontents go to Europe or the UAE or the US, and then they no longer have to deal with them.

But given the right situation that government can be forced into instability or even collapse with nary a shot fired.

I personally would like two things to happen: A) Iran NEVER get nuclear weapons of any sort; and B) The current Islamofascists regime controlling Iran be replaced by a more democratic, pro-Western regime. As someone who has ties to Iran, I'd think you'd want both as well? And your wife too?

I think the difference here is probably a sense of what should remain "on the table" as a possible option for achiving A and B.

I think at this time, all options should remain on the table, including Total War at one extreme end of the continuum, and Total Appeasement at the other. Whichever one is followed in future should be the _best_ route, meaning the one most likely to actually achieve (A+B) not one that is guided by ideological bias that military intervention can never solve any problems, or a willingness to turn a blind eye to the unjust regime controlling Iran.

I guess if the argument you are making is fundamentally that: we can achieve (A + B) through diplomatic means, I'd ask you to refer to any historical precedent that could show the strength of such a model in real history.

How many times in history have xenophobic, authoritarian, theocracies or similarly unjust states been reformed through appeasement? I cannot think of a single example in World History. By their very nature, authoritarian regimes are highly resistant to reform, and so far in the 19th and 20th century, there have been none that I can think of which have spontaneous transformed from authoritarian to liberal and free.

As such, I think a wise leader will argue that all options, including military intervention should remain on the table.

I have already asked you once, and I will kindly ask you again. Please come down off your high horse and read this thread (Iran Proposal) before you comment any further on Froggers opinions about Iran. From your silly comments, it is clear that you have not read his proposal. No one here except you is talking about appeasement.