I know my job is to come up with a solution. Apart from doing everything we can to support and aid the younger generations of Iranians who want the West's freedom, I can't see many feasible options. Sanctions may hurt the next generation and barely dent the regime's hold on power. A military invasion would be all but impossible without a drastic overhaul of the defense budget and the Iraq occupation. Air-strikes might delay nuclear advancement, but couldn't stop it. Iran's maniacs have played their hand shrewdly. Still, I can link to a couple of pieces that have helped me think through the opposite sides of the debate. Here's Simon Jenkins, in a pretty clear case for what can only be called appeasement. And here's a full-blown argument for military invasion. Michael Ledeen is a broken record, but that doesn't mean he isn't right and worth listening to - like, say, two years ago. I wish I could come up with a third way. Maybe a reader can.

We want to hear what you think about this article. Submit a letter to the editor or write to letters@theatlantic.com.