THE NEW YORK POST
January 17, 2006

IRAN'S NUKES, EUROPE'S FOLLIES
By AMIR TAHERI

http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/opedcolumnists/60571.htm

TREATING Iran's alleged nuclear ambition as a hot potato, the European trio of Britain, Germany and France has decided to pass it on to the International Atomic Energy Agency and thence to the United Nations' Security Council. "Our talks with Iran have reached a dead end," says Germany's new Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier.

In truth, however, the trio's three-year talks with Iran started at a dead end.

The talks began when Iran admitted that it had been lying to the International Atomic Energy Agency and violating the terms of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) for 18 years but promised not to do so again.

Legally speaking, Iran should have been referred to the Security Council at that time. But the Europeans rejected U.S. demands to that effect and decided to forgive Iran for its past sins — much as a deceived spouse might show magnanimity toward a sinning partner.

In exchange, they asked Iran — as then French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin put it — to give them "something with which to silence the Americans."

De Villepin had devised the scheme as a means of exposing what he called "the follies of American policy"; Iran could be dealt with "the French way," meaning negotiations and compromise rather than knuckle-rapping or worse.

The Iranians had good reason to welcome the European offer. It removed the serious-seeming threat of military action, while isolating the United States. And it gave Tehran time to speed up its nuclear program.

The Iranians were honest throughout: They said they were prepared to give that "something" needed "to silence the Americans" in the form of a voluntary and temporary suspension of uranium-enrichment activities. They did not promise a permanent ban. Nor would they relinquish Iran's right, under the NPT, to enrich uranium for fuel.

The European trio was deceived by its own illusions, not Iranian chicanery. All it was interested in was to score a point against Washington. Even now, the trio is not asking Iran to permanently forgo its right to enrich uranium.

And now the trio must negotiate with a much tougher Iranian: President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has called the Europeans "nothing but corrupt midgets." He is also convinced that the United States has missed the opportunity to use the threat of military action against Iran.

As a result, Ahmadinejad is actively seeking a diplomatic confrontation with the Europeans and escalating tension with the Americans. He believes that he can take on both and win — and hopes to thereby emerge as the unrivaled master of the Islamic Republic and de facto leader of the Muslim world.

The Europeans are not prepared to acknowledge that the problem is not uranium enrichment but the nature of the Iranian regime. More than 20 countries, from Argentina to Ukraine, enrich uranium without anyone making a fuss. But who can trust the present leadership in Tehran not to embark upon some tragic mischief in the name of its ideology?

European-style appeasement has encouraged Tehran's most radical faction, helping bring Ahmadinejad to power. All the diplomatic gesticulations to follow will only compound that effect.

The Islamic Republic has had three years to prepare for whatever sanctions the Security Council might impose. It has also signed $70 billion in oil and gas contracts with China and $30 billion in arms and industrial contracts with Russia, ensuring that one or both would veto any harsh resolution against Iran.

This is one of those regimes that will not stop until they hit something hard. Why should they, when they can pursue their objectives cost-free? Soft power may work — if it is backed by hard power. Yet Europe has, once again, made it clear that it would oppose even the threat of hard power.

As things stand, all those concerned in this carnival of absurdities have reason to be happy: The Europeans get rid of the hot potato, the Bush administration finds a diplomatic fig-leaf to cover its lack of an Iran policy, the Russians sell their arms, the Chinese get their oil and gas and the Islamists in Tehran accelerate whatever mischief they might be up to in the nuclear domain.

But the problem remains unresolved. Down the road, the West may well find that it would have to use far more than the mere threat of hard power to restrain Tehran's messianic ambitions — a much costlier bill than would have been the case three years ago.

Andy, that's easy for you to say in full confidence that Iran looks not to Europe for possible targets, rather to Israel and the United States.

We have the same "Hard Power"...yet I fear that potential to wipe Iran off of the face of the planet means little to the religious nutjobs running Iran now.

The deliverer of the weapon will not be a missile.  It will be Shi'ite suicide terrorists with a nuclear or bio-weapon hidden in a truck or trucks.

This is another attempt to protect their mullacracy and expand their influence in the region.

Now...move over here, live in DC or New York and then I dare you to really believe what you said.

Quoted: Quoted: Andy, that's easy for you to say in full confidence that Iran looks not to Europe for possible targets, rather to Israel and the United States. We have the same "Hard Power"...yet I fear that potential to wipe Iran off of the face of the planet means little to the religious nutjobs running Iran now. The deliverer of the weapon will not be a missile.  It will be Shi'ite suicide terrorists with a nuclear or bio-weapon hidden in a truck or trucks. This is another attempt to protect their mullacracy and expand their influence in the region. Now...move over here, live in DC or New York and then I dare you to really believe what you said. Lets be realistic here for a minute. Iran has a robust CW capability and a small but very capable BW program. They have large stiocks of CW agents and used them during the Iran-Iraq War. IF, as many in Israel and the US believe, Iran is determined to wipe them out, why has Iran not supplied these weapons to it's cliients in the last 20 years? ANdy

Why indeed?  Possibly because the planets have never been in the alignment that the Pharsi ones find themselves in now:

Now they (The Mullahs and their chosen crazies.) are faced with a looming Iraq that has a very good chance of becoming a democratic, secular economic powerhouse in the region.  That they can't abide.  A free and secular Iraq poses a real threat to all of the oligarchs and theocrazies in the area...especially Iran.  The mullahs must also face the fact that a very large and powerful American army is also on their border ready on a moments notice to invade.  The American Navy can, if required, quickly dispose of their entire afloat forces and control all traffic in the Persian Gulf.    American air forces are now operating from within Iraq and surrounding countries as well.  Here I think, are some of their thought processes:

"The Americans are fractured...sniping at each other at home.  Probably 40% of the infidels want to withdraw their forces at once.  Now is the time to test their resolve."

"The Europeans are spineless.  We can use them to our advantage...much like the American liberals.  Besides, some like our oil more than they fear our nuclear weapons.  Besides...they really aren't our primary targets...[now]"

"The Russians will stick by us, because they like to tweak the Americans.  They fear and resent American hegemony more than our weapons...and we fear them because we KNOW they'd use them.  We're not so sure about an American president's will to kill millions of innocent Iranians if we were to attack."

Finally, they may REALLY believe the apocolyptic shit they spew.  They may really believe they are to be the instrument of the return of the Mahdi...the 12th Imam.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Andy, that's easy for you to say in full confidence that Iran looks not to Europe for possible targets, rather to Israel and the United States. We have the same "Hard Power"...yet I fear that potential to wipe Iran off of the face of the planet means little to the religious nutjobs running Iran now. The deliverer of the weapon will not be a missile.  It will be Shi'ite suicide terrorists with a nuclear or bio-weapon hidden in a truck or trucks. This is another attempt to protect their mullacracy and expand their influence in the region. Now...move over here, live in DC or New York and then I dare you to really believe what you said. Lets be realistic here for a minute. Iran has a robust CW capability and a small but very capable BW program. They have large stiocks of CW agents and used them during the Iran-Iraq War. IF, as many in Israel and the US believe, Iran is determined to wipe them out, why has Iran not supplied these weapons to it's cliients in the last 20 years? ANdy Why indeed?  Possibly because the planets have never been in the alignment that the Pharsi ones find themselves in now: Now they (The Mullahs and their chosen crazies.) are faced with a looming Iraq that has a very good chance of becoming a democratic, secular economic powerhouse in the region.  That they can't abide.  A free and secular Iraq poses a real threat to all of the oligarchs and theocrazies in the area...especially Iran.  The mullahs must also face the fact that a very large and powerful American army is also on their border ready on a moments notice to invade.  The American Navy can, if required, quickly dispose of their entire afloat forces and control all traffic in the Persian Gulf.    American air forces are now operating from within Iraq and surrounding countries as well.  Here I think, are some of their thought processes: "The Americans are fractured...sniping at each other at home.  Probably 40% of the infidels want to withdraw their forces at once.  Now is the time to test their resolve." "The Europeans are spineless.  We can use them to our advantage...much like the American liberals.  Besides, some like our oil more than they fear our nuclear weapons.  Besides...they really aren't our primary targets...[now]" "The Russians will stick by us, because they like to tweak the Americans.  They fear and resent American hegemony more than our weapons...and we fear them because we KNOW they'd use them.  We're not so sure about an American president's will to kill millions of innocent Iranians if we were to attack." Finally, they may REALLY believe the apocolyptic shit they spew.  They may really believe they are to be the instrument of the return of the Mahdi...the 12th Imam.

They may very well be that instrument.  (That said, I'm thinking it may not quite go the way they plan)

I couldn't care less about Iran's nuclear ambitions.  Really, it's dumb for one nation (or group of nations) to try to tell another that they absolutely cannot have a weapon that they, themselves, develop.  They haven't provided chemical or biological agents to terrorists yet, so, what makes you think that they'll provide them nukes?  

They talk a lot.  That's about it.  Let them talk.  
Matt

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Andy, that's easy for you to say in full confidence that Iran looks not to Europe for possible targets, rather to Israel and the United States. We have the same "Hard Power"...yet I fear that potential to wipe Iran off of the face of the planet means little to the religious nutjobs running Iran now. The deliverer of the weapon will not be a missile.  It will be Shi'ite suicide terrorists with a nuclear or bio-weapon hidden in a truck or trucks. This is another attempt to protect their mullacracy and expand their influence in the region. Now...move over here, live in DC or New York and then I dare you to really believe what you said. Lets be realistic here for a minute. Iran has a robust CW capability and a small but very capable BW program. They have large stiocks of CW agents and used them during the Iran-Iraq War. IF, as many in Israel and the US believe, Iran is determined to wipe them out, why has Iran not supplied these weapons to it's cliients in the last 20 years? ANdy Why indeed?  Possibly because the planets have never been in the alignment that the Pharsi ones find themselves in now: Now they (The Mullahs and their chosen crazies.) are faced with a looming Iraq that has a very good chance of becoming a democratic, secular economic powerhouse in the region.  That they can't abide.  A free and secular Iraq poses a real threat to all of the oligarchs and theocrazies in the area...especially Iran.  The mullahs must also face the fact that a very large and powerful American army is also on their border ready on a moments notice to invade.  The American Navy can, if required, quickly dispose of their entire afloat forces and control all traffic in the Persian Gulf.    American air forces are now operating from within Iraq and surrounding countries as well.  Here I think, are some of their thought processes: "The Americans are fractured...sniping at each other at home.  Probably 40% of the infidels want to withdraw their forces at once.  Now is the time to test their resolve." "The Europeans are spineless.  We can use them to our advantage...much like the American liberals.  Besides, some like our oil more than they fear our nuclear weapons.  Besides...they really aren't our primary targets...[now]" "The Russians will stick by us, because they like to tweak the Americans.  They fear and resent American hegemony more than our weapons...and we fear them because we KNOW they'd use them.  We're not so sure about an American president's will to kill millions of innocent Iranians if we were to attack." Finally, they may REALLY believe the apocolyptic shit they spew.  They may really believe they are to be the instrument of the return of the Mahdi...the 12th Imam. They may very well be that instrument.  (That said, I'm thinking it may not quite go the way they plan) I couldn't care less about Iran's nuclear ambitions.  Really, it's dumb for one nation (or group of nations) to try to tell another that they absolutely cannot have a weapon that they, themselves, develop.  They haven't provided chemical or biological agents to terrorists yet, so, what makes you think that they'll provide them nukes?   They talk a lot.  That's about it.  Let them talk.   Matt

Seriously speaking, how comfortable do you feel trusting your life and that of your family, to that logic?  

Japan didn't attack us until Peral Harbor.  Terrorists didn't attack us until 9/11.  Before then people were saying the exact same things.  Afterwards, they were complaining about not connecting the dots.


-K

I don't know why they don't understand that you cannot negotiate with terrorists.

The only thing terrorists understand is force - that's what must be done.

I'm not worried about Iran nuking the US.

I'm worried about what happens when Iran nukes Isreal (because they could wipe that country literally off the face of the earth) and the implications of Isreal's counterstrike.

I don't think any of us want's a nuclear exchange anywhere on the planet.

So, why not solve the problem with the application of a JDAM to the Allatoyah's ass?

Quoted: Europe has 'Hard Power' and does not fear Iran... Britain has 4 SSBN's each with 16 missiles and 3 warheads per missile... France has 5 SSBN's each with 16 missiles with 6 warheads per missile... An attack with WMD's on any EU country would mean a response from those assets.... ANdy

That's great.  Some terrorists detonate nukes in major US cities, but it's cool 'cuz then we'll get to nuke Iran.

Quoted: Quoted: I'm not worried about Iran nuking the US. I'm worried about what happens when Iran nukes Isreal (because they could wipe that country literally off the face of the earth) and the implications of Isreal's counterstrike. I don't think any of us want's a nuclear exchange anywhere on the planet. So, why not solve the problem with the application of a JDAM to the Allatoyah's ass? Reality Time: Lots of people want nukes and WMD and think 'Wow! won't it be great'... but everyone who has gotten them has found one thing... you cannot use them. NO ONE has used nukes since 1945. And Israels broken record about how they are going to be wiped out is getting sooooo old! Islamic WMD in the Middle East region 1970 to date: Iran Iraq Syria Egypt Libya Pakistan Saudi Arabia (Jury out on that one but see link) Now that's a lot of countries who have the capability to wipe out the population of Israel... so how come Isreal persists? Saudi Nuclear Policy and ambitions

You make good points as always vito but none of the countries listed above are a radical, theolgy based, single minded government who have made their intentions very clear.
I dont want Clerics in command of their nukes any more than I would want Pat Robertson in command of ours.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Andy, that's easy for you to say in full confidence that Iran looks not to Europe for possible targets, rather to Israel and the United States. We have the same "Hard Power"...yet I fear that potential to wipe Iran off of the face of the planet means little to the religious nutjobs running Iran now. The deliverer of the weapon will not be a missile.  It will be Shi'ite suicide terrorists with a nuclear or bio-weapon hidden in a truck or trucks. This is another attempt to protect their mullacracy and expand their influence in the region. Now...move over here, live in DC or New York and then I dare you to really believe what you said. Lets be realistic here for a minute. Iran has a robust CW capability and a small but very capable BW program. They have large stiocks of CW agents and used them during the Iran-Iraq War. IF, as many in Israel and the US believe, Iran is determined to wipe them out, why has Iran not supplied these weapons to it's cliients in the last 20 years? ANdy Why indeed?  Possibly because the planets have never been in the alignment that the Pharsi ones find themselves in now: Now they (The Mullahs and their chosen crazies.) are faced with a looming Iraq that has a very good chance of becoming a democratic, secular economic powerhouse in the region.  That they can't abide.  A free and secular Iraq poses a real threat to all of the oligarchs and theocrazies in the area...especially Iran.  The mullahs must also face the fact that a very large and powerful American army is also on their border ready on a moments notice to invade.  The American Navy can, if required, quickly dispose of their entire afloat forces and control all traffic in the Persian Gulf.    American air forces are now operating from within Iraq and surrounding countries as well.  Here I think, are some of their thought processes: "The Americans are fractured...sniping at each other at home.  Probably 40% of the infidels want to withdraw their forces at once.  Now is the time to test their resolve." "The Europeans are spineless.  We can use them to our advantage...much like the American liberals.  Besides, some like our oil more than they fear our nuclear weapons.  Besides...they really aren't our primary targets...[now]" "The Russians will stick by us, because they like to tweak the Americans.  They fear and resent American hegemony more than our weapons...and we fear them because we KNOW they'd use them.  We're not so sure about an American president's will to kill millions of innocent Iranians if we were to attack." Finally, they may REALLY believe the apocolyptic shit they spew.  They may really believe they are to be the instrument of the return of the Mahdi...the 12th Imam. They may very well be that instrument.  (That said, I'm thinking it may not quite go the way they plan) I couldn't care less about Iran's nuclear ambitions.  Really, it's dumb for one nation (or group of nations) to try to tell another that they absolutely cannot have a weapon that they, themselves, develop.  They haven't provided chemical or biological agents to terrorists yet, so, what makes you think that they'll provide them nukes?   They talk a lot.  That's about it.  Let them talk.   Matt

Matt,

Your logic works fairly well for rational westerners.  It fails the smell test when applied to what we consider to be irrational, suicidal beings like the hard core Shi'ite Muslims currently running Iran.

The same logic was applied to the Japanese near the end of WW II by the National Command Authority.  When dealing with an enemy who is perfectly willing to die KNOWING it means the end of his life here on Earth and possibly that of his entire family, country and culture, your options are very limited.  If you can stop him with a minimum of casualties, then you do so.  The atomic bombs were a logical but painful application of that thesis.  If you can not, and you must go the entire distance, then it simply becomes a battle to see which country, civilization, and culture will survive.  Had the Japanese not surrendered, we would have exterminated them.

The Israelis are painfully aware of this equation.  We have only recently become so aware.  There really are millions of people out there who would like to see all of us taking a dirt nap...after a very painful and prolonged death of possible.  We can't permit that.

Please think about that IF the NCA ever decides to put B-16s back on the CVNs and you are called upon to hump one to a target.

Quoted: Europe has 'Hard Power' and does not fear Iran... Britain has 4 SSBN's each with 16 missiles and 3 warheads per missile... France has 5 SSBN's each with 16 missiles with 6 warheads per missile... An attack with WMD's on any EU country would mean a response from those assets.... ANdy

Andy, I don't doubt that your country has what it takes to use these assets against Iran, but the french won't do jack, under any circumstance. They are a pathetic excuse for a country.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: You make good points as always vito but none of the countries listed above are a radical, theolgy based, single minded government who have made their intentions very clear. I dont want Clerics in command of their nukes any more than I would want Pat Robertson in command of ours. At the moment.... but Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are just a heartbeat away from being Ultra Loony Tunes hard line Taliban Theocracies. Both are the breeding ground of ultra extreme Islamic fundamentalists. Saudi Arabia funds islamic terrorism to a huge degree and is a Wahabbi State, Mushareff is walking a razor blade and if he falls it's a new Taliban at the helm, (let's not forget it was the Pakistani ISI that created the monster). Both countries supply nearly all the hard line clerics and shock troops for the Islamofascists and Pakistan seems to be effectively shielding Bin Laden. Yes, Iran does mischief make, small scale support for the Shiites in Iraq, Hezbollah in Lebanon. But it's small scale stuff and very regional, we are not finding Iranians operating outside their local area. Now compare that with the amount of Saudi money flowing into AQ's coffers and the number of Saudi and Pakistani nationals that keep turning up behaving badly in the West. Now answer me this, who should we fear more.... an Iran that has effectively confined itself to fiery rhetoric against the West for 25 years... or Pakistan and Saudi Arabia who are allowing their nationals to operate as the prime movers in the vast majority of terrorist acts against the West? 9/11 in the US was basically a Saudi operation, 7/7 in London was Pakistanis. I know who I fear more.... Pakistan. It's got nukes and it's population already openly operates against us. If Mushareff falls we have another Afghanistan, but this time the Taliban and Bin Laden will be safe behind a nuclear umbrella. Now that IS a nuclear nightmare. ANdy

You know Andy...you are right.  I grow weary of this silly debate.  I think it is time to send launch orders to SAC and our subs.  In less than an hour we can fix this problem and end the threat.

What say you all?  How about a little canned sunshine!  

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: You make good points as always vito but none of the countries listed above are a radical, theolgy based, single minded government who have made their intentions very clear. I dont want Clerics in command of their nukes any more than I would want Pat Robertson in command of ours. At the moment.... but Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are just a heartbeat away from being Ultra Loony Tunes hard line Taliban Theocracies. Both are the breeding ground of ultra extreme Islamic fundamentalists. Saudi Arabia funds islamic terrorism to a huge degree and is a Wahabbi State, Mushareff is walking a razor blade and if he falls it's a new Taliban at the helm, (let's not forget it was the Pakistani ISI that created the monster). Both countries supply nearly all the hard line clerics and shock troops for the Islamofascists and Pakistan seems to be effectively shielding Bin Laden. Yes, Iran does mischief make, small scale support for the Shiites in Iraq, Hezbollah in Lebanon. But it's small scale stuff and very regional, we are not finding Iranians operating outside their local area. Now compare that with the amount of Saudi money flowing into AQ's coffers and the number of Saudi and Pakistani nationals that keep turning up behaving badly in the West. Now answer me this, who should we fear more.... an Iran that has effectively confined itself to fiery rhetoric against the West for 25 years... or Pakistan and Saudi Arabia who are allowing their nationals to operate as the prime movers in the vast majority of terrorist acts against the West? 9/11 in the US was basically a Saudi operation, 7/7 in London was Pakistanis. I know who I fear more.... Pakistan. It's got nukes and it's population already openly operates against us. If Mushareff falls we have another Afghanistan, but this time the Taliban and Bin Laden will be safe behind a nuclear umbrella. Now that IS a nuclear nightmare. ANdy

That would be a nightmarish scenario indeed, but the point I am trying to make is ANY religous zealot ANYWHERE scares the hell out of me, particularly when they beleive contrary to me and beleive my extermination is their ultimate goal.
As long as the above statement is true all other points aren't viable. Therefore I dont want any Muslim based nation to have nukes.

Quoted: Matt, Your logic works fairly well for rational westerners.  It fails the smell test when applied to what we consider to be irrational, suicidal beings like the hard core Shi'ite Muslims currently running Iran. The same logic was applied to the Japanese near the end of WW II by the National Command Authority.  When dealing with an enemy who is perfectly willing to die KNOWING it means the end of his life here on Earth and possibly that of his entire family, country and culture, your options are very limited.  If you can stop him with a minimum of casualties, then you do so.  The atomic bombs were a logical but painful application of that thesis.  If you can not, and you must go the entire distance, then it simply becomes a battle to see which country, civilization, and culture will survive.  Had the Japanese not surrendered, we would have exterminated them. The Israelis are painfully aware of this equation.  We have only recently become so aware.  There really are millions of people out there who would like to see all of us taking a dirt nap...after a very painful and prolonged death of possible.  We can't permit that.

While I agree with your assessment, I have to point out that there are many many psychotic people in the world with their fingers on the "button."  France, for instance.  

I am curious, strictly from an academic standpoint, exactly how ethical is it for us to, through the UN, keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons when they have shown no REAL signs of aggression towards us or our allies in recent times.  Is fear of future action reason enough to take violent action against a nation?  I do not think so - then again, such decisions are above my paygrade.  

Please think about that IF the NCA ever decides to put B-16s back on the CVNs and you are called upon to hump one to a target.

Nothing to think about.  A nuke - especially one carried on an airplane - is simply another weapon. They are not the doomsday devices they are generally thought to be.  
Matt

Quoted: Quoted: Matt, Your logic works fairly well for rational westerners.  It fails the smell test when applied to what we consider to be irrational, suicidal beings like the hard core Shi'ite Muslims currently running Iran. The same logic was applied to the Japanese near the end of WW II by the National Command Authority.  When dealing with an enemy who is perfectly willing to die KNOWING it means the end of his life here on Earth and possibly that of his entire family, country and culture, your options are very limited.  If you can stop him with a minimum of casualties, then you do so.  The atomic bombs were a logical but painful application of that thesis.  If you can not, and you must go the entire distance, then it simply becomes a battle to see which country, civilization, and culture will survive.  Had the Japanese not surrendered, we would have exterminated them. The Israelis are painfully aware of this equation.  We have only recently become so aware.  There really are millions of people out there who would like to see all of us taking a dirt nap...after a very painful and prolonged death of possible.  We can't permit that. While I agree with your assessment, I have to point out that there are many many psychotic people in the world with their fingers on the "button."  France, for instance.   I am curious, strictly from an academic standpoint, exactly how ethical is it for us to, through the UN, keep Iran from developing nuclear weapons when they have shown no REAL signs of aggression towards us or our allies in recent times.  Is fear of future action reason enough to take violent action against a nation?  I do not think so - then again, such decisions are above my paygrade.   Please think about that IF the NCA ever decides to put B-1661s back on the CVNs and you are called upon to hump one to a target.  My dislexia is showing!   Nothing to think about.  A nuke - especially one carried on an airplane - is simply another weapon. They are not the doomsday devices they are generally thought to be.   Matt

WADR, I must disagree.  A nuke is most certainly a "doomsday" device...because once used in our modern world...once the genie is out of the bottle, it will be hard to put it back.

Frankly, I'm not all that concerned about the ethics or fairness of us trying to keep Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.  My reasoning is quite simple:  I treat them as I would a violent convicted felon.  I wouldn't give the felon a gun...I don't want the currently leadership in Iran to have nuclear weapons in their possession...for all of the good reasons already mentioned here.

Quoted: WADR, I must disagree.  A nuke is most certainly a "doomsday" device...because once used in our modern world...once the genie is out of the bottle, it will be hard to put it back. Frankly, I'm not all that concerned about the ethics or fairness of us trying to keep Iran from getting a nuclear weapon.  My reasoning is quite simple:  I treat them as I would a violent convicted felon.  I wouldn't give the felon a gun...I don't want the currently leadership in Iran to have nuclear weapons in their possession...for all of the good reasons already mentioned here.

Ok, I'll conceed that we don't WANT them to have nukes.  Does that, however, grant us the right to declare war upon them?  Does a group of nations in the majority have the right to tell another nation that has the capability not to develop a certain type of weapon?  

I spent a lot of extra time studying Just War Theory back at the boat school and, I'd have to say that, given the current state of things, we don't have a lot of right to stop them.

The United States, for the most part does things "the right way."  We more or less adhere to the precepts of Just War.  I think that, in order for us to continue to be the greatest nation on earth, we must continue to adhere (as closely as humanly possible) to these precepts.  Those are:

-A just war can only be waged as a last resort. All non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified.
-A war is just only if it is waged by a legitimate authority. Even just causes cannot be served by actions taken by individuals or groups who do not constitute an authority sanctioned by whatever the society and outsiders to the society deem legitimate.
-A just war can only be fought to redress a wrong suffered. For example, self-defense against an armed attack is always considered to be a just cause (although the justice of the cause is not sufficient--see point #4). Further, a just war can only be fought with "right" intentions: the only permissible objective of a just war is to redress the injury.
-A war can only be just if it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. Deaths and injury incurred in a hopeless cause are not morally justifiable.
-The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought.
-The violence used in the war must be proportional to the injury suffered. States are prohibited from using force not necessary to attain the limited objective of addressing the injury suffered.
-The weapons used in war must discriminate between combatants and non-combatants. Civilians are never permissible targets of war, and every effort must be taken to avoid killing civilians. The deaths of civilians are justified only if they are unavoidable victims of a deliberate attack on a military target.

Matt

Hassan Abbassi, “intelligence” advisor to Ahmadinejad, has said: “We have a strategy drawn up for the destruction of Anglo-Saxon civilization. We must make use of everything we have at hand to strike at this front by means of our suicide operations or by means of our missiles.”