Should the U.S. Attack Iranian Nuclear Facilities?

When deciding whether or not the U.S. should preemptively attack Iranian nuclear facilities I believe Edward N. Luttwak made a better "no" argument. The issue summary in the beginning of the article tends to provoke the no opinion by listing three possible outcomes which creates negative outcomes. The use of force "could alienate the Iranian public, further incite Muslim opposition to the United States around the world, and lead Iran to retaliate by working to stimulate attacks on U.S. soldiers in Iraq by Shiite groups linked to Iran" (129). To forestall anticipated outcomes by acting first will not lead to anything positive. In the yes argument, Mario tries to say the U.S. is "given up on a vital element of its national defense" (130). However, According to Edward, these efforts to build nuclear weapons began over thirty years ago and are still years away from producing a single bomb. This shows that a preempt attack will not be effective; how can there be such "uncertainty" on whether or not Iran will attack when they have yet to produce a bomb? What would be the chance of an attack on the U.S. when we have been allies with Iran in the past? Most Iranians except for the very few extremists admire the U.S.; we need to gain our future allies back. Also, the engineers and scientists working on the nuclear weapons are more sensible people and not necessarily nationalists who promote their leaders. Overall, the situation hasn't progressed enough to ignite the fear and "uncertainty" to provoke action against Iranian nuclear facilities.