Invading, however, really isn’t necessary, according to American historian Arthur Herman. Air strikes and naval attacks from the Persian Gulf would be more than enough:
"Almost 90 percent of the mullahs’ oil assets are located either in or near the Gulf. So is the nuclear reactor that Russia is building for Iran at Bushehr. Virtually every Iranian well or production platform depends on access to the Gulf if Iran’s oil is to reach buyers. Hence, the same Straits by means of which Iran intends to lever itself into a position of global power present the West with its own point of leverage to reduce Iran’s power—and to keep it reduced for at least as long as the country’s political institutions remain unprepared to enter the modern world."
Worth a read.
THE TEXAS SCRIBBLER 
Bush will never cause harm to the oil production facilities, that much is clear. And to bomb active nuclear installations may cause radioactive pollution of the surrounding cities.
That’s a quandary no matter which way you look at it.
Doesn’t seem so clear to me. Their coastal facilities are mainly refineries and oil off-loading terminals. Hitting them would stop Iran’s decrepit military in a week. And leave Russia’s and China’s investments in the Caspian Sea oil fields untouched. As for radiation on some cities, well, would you rather spare them and lose Tel Aviv? Altho one of Herman’s points re the nuclear program is that we don’t have to hit each of the scattered plants, some deeply buried, but just cut the highways, bridges and tunnels that connect them. Certainly there are quandries all around, but if we don’t strike them, Iraq, for one, is lost, and we may as well go home and wait for the next 9/11.