Sanctions on Iran, seriously?

Hello and welcome to my latest political diatribe.  Today's issue that I have decided to publicly scorn has to do with an article discussing President Obama's desire to see "sanctions" implemented against Iran within weeks.  Well I'm sure he would love to see that, it's not going to happen because we would need to get Russia and China on board before we can implement sanctions and both of those countries rely on Iran for oil.  There is a certain amount of irony that America is often accused of going to war for oil, and yet oil is the reason that Iran is getting away with their shenanigans, but that's an issue for another day.  What I want to know is why are we still considering sanctions?  Have sanctions ever worked?  They didn't work in Iraq, they haven't worked in North Korea, they haven't worked in Cuba, they didn't work in Serbia and the list goes on.  Why are we still wasting time and energy pursuing a policy that has no possibility of achieving anything?  I know the main argument for sanctions is that it is preferable to war.  Well is it really?  Who suffers when sanctions are implemented against a country?  It's not the leadership, there's always somebody out there who is willing to deal with the rich.  The only people who sanctions affect are the poor.  Kim Jung Il is still drinking his cognac despite the UN sanctions prohibiting it.  Does anybody really believe that Iran is going to stop its nuclear program based on the threat of "sanctions?"  What's really sad is that the Iranian people are obviously dissatisfied with their government given the recent demonstrations in that country.  What did the US do when those people were protesting against their tyrannical government?  Where were we?  There are only two options left to us: we can do nothing (this option includes sanctions since it amounts to the same thing) and let Iran develop nuclear weapons, and anyone who doesn't believe that this is Iran's ultimate goal is simply not paying attention, or we can take out Iran's nuclear facilities.  I'm not advocating war with Iran.  Israel bombed Syria's nuclear facilities a couple of years ago and it didn't start WW III.  There are those that would argue that this would be an act or war and maybe it would be, but let's examine Iran's actions towards the US.  Iran has supplied and continues to supply insurgent groups in Iraq with weaponry that is used, with Iran's tacit approval, against US forces (which is an act of war by the way).  Iran provide financial and logistical support to known terrorist organizations who are bent on the destruction of not only Israel, but the United States as well.  Iran provides asylum to radical Islamic groups such as the Badr brigade that have participated in attacks against US forces.  The Iranian government has long considered the US to be the great Satan and views the US, not Israel as its primary enemy.  So I have a hard time understanding a) why we even consider letting Iran get their hands on nuclear weapons, and b) why we're squeamish about taking these sites out.  We're not talking about invading Iran or attacking a civilian population, we're talking about bombing sites we're a hostile government is producing weapons of mass destruction.  So if we want to pass sanctions against Iran in the hopes that it will see the light, forgo it's nuclear program and become a productive member of the global community by all means go ahead, but don't hold your breath.