A number of years ago, at a time of heightened tensions with Iran, an Iranian-American classmate of mine when I lived in Tehran called me and asked, "What are the chances of airstrikes?"

He was concerned about his mother, who lives in Isfahan, about an hour's drive from Iran's uranium enrichment plant at Natanz.

That phone call has prompted continuing discussions between us on the subject, intensifying lately as experts have been saying it's time to decide between bombing Iran and dealing with an Iranian bomb.

My old classmate lives in the U.S. but travels regularly to Iran to visit friends and family. I called him last week to ask some questions:

Are sanctions weakening the regime?

Sanctions are hitting everyone hard. Prices are rising so fast that people go to the store and can't buy what they came for. People definitely associate the economic situation with the nuclear program, and they're angry with both the West and the regime. But I think that as the new sanctions take hold and things get worse, the brunt of the anger will be against the regime.

Ahmadinejad says the nuclear program is a matter of national pride. True?

It's probably the same passion Americans feel about Newt Gingrich's moon colony. That's how much Iranians care about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's nuclear program. People care a lot more right now about their daily bread.

So do Iranians agree that you should shut down the program?

No. Nobody thinks we should give it up because the West orders us to. Even Green Party backers who were beaten on the street for protesting the regime will say, "Why are countries that enrich uranium telling us that we can't do what they do?" The protesters see this as the same arrogance they so dislike in the Islamic regime.

So if people are indifferent about the nuclear program and angry with the regime, how can they be opposed to giving up the nuclear program?

Nothing in Iran is simple — especially politics. These guys pushed their nuclear program and got us in this mess. If they back down now and accept no enrichment, they would be mocked by every cab driver and bread baker in Iran. I doubt they could give in and survive — and they want to survive.

Would airstrikes strengthen them or weaken them?

The people's anger from the sanctions is mostly at the regime, but the anger from airstrikes would be harshly on the attackers. My mom is an example. She voted against Ahmadinejad. She opposes the regime. She's visited Auschwitz. She has zero animosity toward Israel. But she said to me today, "Why are they picking on Iran?" If Iran were bombed, her anger would be at the attackers.

So what kind of deal would the Iranian regime accept?

Obviously, I don't speak for anyone but myself, but it seems to me the one possibility of a deal is for Iran to get limited enrichment for civil nuclear energy and for the West to get lots of inspectors who can go anywhere they want without warning.

Of course, the deal my friend describes has little appeal in the West. It would allow Iran to take its nuclear program to the brink of a bomb and then expel the inspectors and build a weapon. If this is the only possible deal, it explains why airstrikes are under discussion.

But the idea that airstrikes are a solution is a dangerous myth.

Meir Dagan — the former director of Mossad who, in 2004, was put in charge of Israel's efforts to stop the Iranian bomb — told reporters in Israel at the end of 2010: "The working assumption that it is possible to totally halt the Iranian nuclear project by means of a military attack is incorrect. ... It is possible to cause a delay, but even that would only be for a limited period of time."

This clarifies the options:

—No airstrikes, which likely would lead to a nuclear weapon in Iran.

—Airstrikes, which likely would lead to missile and rocket attacks on Israeli cities, followed — a few years later — by a nuclear weapon in Iran.

The only force that truly could prevent a nuclear weapon in Iran is a new regime in Iran — and that reframes the choices: Which is likelier to lead to a new regime, sanctions or airstrikes?

"Sanctions," my friend says. "Sanctions will grind them down. Airstrikes would be like oxygen to an asthmatic."

Tom Rosshirt was a national security speechwriter for President Bill Clinton and a foreign affairs spokesman for Vice President Al Gore. Email him at [email protected]. To find out more about Tom Rosshirt and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.