That a skyrocketing oil price would help a nation causing IAEA "concern[s]" about nuclear weapons is symptomatic of why a solely US strike would be unwise. If the world were truly "concerned" there would be sanctions in place to moot the price of oil for Irans regime; that there aren't indicates any corrective action by the US would involve us alone. And while a nuclear Iran would be really bad for the rest of the world, it wouldn't be particularly bad for America. If a few terror states nuked some of their neighbors perhaps any attempt at US deterrence might meet fewer accusations of imperialism (more likely the US would simply be criticized as harshly for INACTION as for action, but the price in dollars and blood would be lower. )

America is engaged in a war of civilizations, on multiple fronts, including domestic. America currently represents a moderate position between more authoritarian and democratic government models. I believe it noteworthy America is one of the few examples of the former in the developed world. What's more troubling is that most critics of government power here are more concerned with the "government" part than the "power" part, because this is supposedly a republic, thus the government is theoretically accountable to the people. To the extent it's not we're more like Saudi Arabia than we are Japan. There's a reason we even care about nuclear ambitions in countries half way around the world with no hope of striking United States territory, and reasons we don't automatically resort to gunboat diplomacy there. Mid-East Muslims aren't the only ones upset by corporate Americas abuse; they aren't even the only ones flying planes into buildings over it. While such disgusting symptoms shouldn't be ignored, perhaps we should at least consider addressing the problem on a deeper level.

Israel hasn't initiated any wars in its countrys existence (despite claims about the blockade prior to the Six Days War) and Egypt figured that out shortly after Jordan did; hopefully some day Syria will, too. Israel also isn't a theocracy but as long as the mullahs decide who can run for President, Iran is. While Egypt is predominantly Muslim, it's not a theocracy either, and the terrorist murders over that at the pyramids a few years ago are a good example of why Egypt should be more alarmed by a nuclear Iran than by a nuclear Israel.

That's exactly what we should do, both to make a proper case for war that will unify the world when an actual invasion that would prevent or eliminate a nuclear arsenal becomes necessary (as I think it inevitably will) and to paint Russia and China into a corner where it becomes undeniable that their opposition to sanctions or any other action against rogue states with nuclear ambitions is solely based on their commercial cooperation with those ambitions. Pakistan didn't just wake up one morning with nuclear missiles Santa left under their tree; it's an open secret China provided the tech and materials (for a hefty fee, of course. ) Likewise, the only reason North Korea exists is as a satellite of China, so the suggestion a country that can't even overcome a decade of famine built intermediate range nuclear missiles without Chinese aid is absurd. In geopolitical terms the only thing that's changed since America "won" the Cold War is that the Non-Aligned States are bigger players than ever, to an increasing degree, nuclear players. It's past time the rest of the world reevaluated where their interests lie, with twisting Americas tail for the hell of it, or keeping "rogue superpowers" from arming terror proxies with nuclear weapons in the interest of plausible deniability (and profit; go, capitalism!)

Here I have to disagree again. US endorsement of any Iranian opposition is the kiss of death; it would be like the Soviets endorsing a liberal American group in 1955. Any main stream credibility would be shot to hell once they became "the American faction. " Perhaps more subtle behind the scenes aid would work, but would remain dangerous, because it would still be seen as an endorsement and, if concealed, duplicitous once it came to light (mainly because it would be. ) They'd be a fifth column. In terms of the Mid-East itself the best thing would be for America to disassociate completely, removing itself as a scapegoat for all the regions domestic problems. It won't happen, at least not soon, because of economics, but without us to blame the various authoritarian regimes would have to justify their policies on merit (though history has shown they'd probably just switch to demonizing a minority opposition instead. )

Iran is different, depending on the accuracy of Fareeds next statements, and it's unwise to underestimate the cult of personality (et alia) within an overtly religious authoritarian regime. Saddam was canny and ruthlessly pragmatic; he's still dead. Seemingly the biggest reason is that he thought he could take us and his advisors knew he'd killed his own children for disagreeing with him, so they didn't acquaint him with reality.

If, in fact, that last part is true (and insanity in my own life precludes me monitoring the situation closely) then yes, it's actually a slight improvement for precisely the reasons he says. That's why we tolerated and even assisted Musharraf so long, even supported him more rather than less as we entered the War of Terror and learned Pakistan had gone nuclear: Not because the military dictatorship was a beacon of democratic hope, but because the only alternative was unpredictably irrational religious extremists we didn't want to provide with nuclear missiles.

As unpleasant as the prospect is, the percentages favor exhausting all diplomatic options so that if/when war comes we can honestly and credibly tell our allies we did all we could to avert it, and not be forced to commit an already overtaxed US military to a solo invasion (the only way to remove nuclear bunkers short of burrowing nukes) when we've got a $12 trillion dollar debt. Meanwhile, the country that holds a vast amount of that debt will continue absorbing our production and selling nukes to rogue states. That IS a very real threat to US security, a much greater one than Irans nuclear ambitions. Bottom line is that a nuclear Iran would be a problem for a lot of people, but America isn't one of them, so until they care I don't see why we should. On the docks where my grandfather spent most of his professional life they have a saying: "Do someone a favor they didn't ask for, you get punched in the nose. " It's time America stopped doing that.