Didn´t read the full piece yet and already it is obious that it is a sum up of possible worst case situations. The tendency to advocate a cause rather than actually analyzing and guessing an outcome is obvious, when this "think tank" on the one hand says, there will be a long war including the closure of the straits of Hormuz and on the other hand thatz the IRI will rebuild it´s capacities and then a bomb: Son with the Straits of Hormuz closed (which the IRI is not able to), there will be no moneyin tehran for the rebuiling of the program. The piece is playing with fears to get to its point without thinking the alternatives through. It´s only message is: Don´t bomb the IRI - better to let them have the bomb. One tends to fundamentally disagree.
Boko Haram extremists kill 26, including children (AP)
from the article: Israel attack wouldn't stop Iran nuclear program, says U.K. study