One of the very BIG difficulties here is the effect that sanctions or military action would have on the world oil market.

With all of the rhetoric going on at present, that market is getting increasingly jittery – consequence is increasing oil prices at $69 and counting. How will GWB and co rationalise that – “…well we gotta take out I-ran so that they cant think about having a nuke weapon but in the meantime oil is going to cost 50% more…” Remember that the US has already purchased its winter heating stock for 05/06 so the real impact in the US will not be until the July – Sept quarter.

allen -“We went to war against the axis of evil and 2 of it’s members have positioned themselves in ways uncomfortable to us. “

But surely that is what war is all about. No one saw that happening?

ASC – “It is true that a nuclear Iran might not cause as many dire problems as many predict. But do we want to get into that situation? Once they’re armed, our ability to even negotiate with them goes away–and we can forget about even the most targeted of strikes. “

I think this gets very close to the heart of the matter.

It is not a case of the danger that Iran poses if it were nuclear armed, so much as the fact that having those arms would make Iran another nation that the US would have to treat as an equal rather than as the beach weakling that can be bullied into buying the icecreams and coke.

With Iran’s population at around 40% or so… being 14 years of age or younger… and most not liking those who run their government… I would say the problem in Iran will take care of itself… We just need more time and backing for these future Iranians to take charge of their country and future…

Israel will protect herself from all threats… and for Israel… Iran with a Nuclear Weapon is not only a threat… but a major treat to her very survival. That kind of threat will never be allowed…
AubreyJ………

North Korea has formidable smuggling capaciities and could get a bomb on container shipping.

Billions to star wars don’t stop this.

Israel can only do limited damage to the Iranian program. The desire for it as savior is silly.

An extensive US military effort, not much invasion, but bombing could possibly force changes, but troops in Iraq are vulnerable to Iranian allied militias.

A response to Iran require preparation for massive conservation and sacrifice. The militant right believes you battle crisis by tax cuts and consumption. They will not like “Jimmy Carterism.”

We went to war against the axis of evil and 2 of it’s members have positioned themselves in ways uncomfortable to us. The usual response of the militant right is to ignore this since it would reflect badly on the administration.

So one has every reason to be pessimistic.

It is certainly unfortunate that Pakistan has the bomb. And more so that North Korea does (although that’s still not entirely proven). What makes Iran even worse is their political establishment and geographic location. They could seriously distablize the Israeli/Palestenian situation with just one threat. And they could blackmail European countries. And they could pass the technology and/or equipment onto other so-called rogue nations and groups.

It is true that a nuclear Iran might not cause as many dire problems as many predict. But do we want to get into that situation? Once they’re armed, our ability to even negotiate with them goes away–and we can forget about even the most targeted of strikes. Wouldn’t it be better to close this door now instead of just hoping they don’t get the bomb or, if they do, hoping that they use it responsibly?

Assuming Iran makes the bomb- only assuming- the biggest danger I see to us and the west is that we will have to negotiate with them in the same terms as we do with India or Pakistan or China (our one time mortal enemy and the great communist threat was it?) And if their economy and the competition permit them to increase we’ll have to pay their price for their oil or not to buy it at all. This would be very unpleasant.
The bottom line is that we could no longer dictate our terms just based on our superior military although we will still have our economical, technological and social advantage in our dealings with them. But that takes diplomatic skills and sophistication that have been in short supply lately. We no longer carry a big stick and walk softly which takes a certain wisdom and intelligence, we go around and beat the bushes and over stretch our muscles.
And all that is assuming there will a bomb.

It is clear to me that the motives to scare us beyond reason are not what they seem to be and so I keep calm and think and study our past conflicts for myself so that I can put thing in their proper perspective.

I don’t think it’s hysterical to realize the severity of the situation. The choice is really a nuclear Iran or a non-nuclear Iran. The former is clearly preferable and it is not irrational to say we should stand firm. To be clear, I am not advocating military action, only pointing out it could get to that point. It’s a good thing to talk about worst-case-scenarios now, when Iran is still at least a year or more away from a bomb. We certainly don’t want to wait until a real crisis erupts before we question whether or not we have the will to handle it. It’s these kinds of discusions now that help prevent hysteria in the future.