But just to be clear, Iran is the one that is threatening us.

I think Obama not being a progressive is a big part of the reason he stands a chance at being re-elected.

Here's what the Republican front runner, Mitt Romney says he would do about Iran's nuclear ambitions:

Beginning Nov. 4, 1979 , dozens of U.S. diplomats were held hostage by Iranian Islamic revolutionaries for 444 days while America’s feckless president, Jimmy Carter, fretted in the White House. Running for the presidency against Carter the next year, Ronald Reagan made it crystal clear that the Iranians would pay a very stiff price for continuing their criminal behavior. On Jan. 20, 1981, in the hour that Reagan was sworn into office, Iran released the hostages. The Iranians well understood that Reagan was serious about turning words into action in a way that Jimmy Carter never was.

America and the world face a strikingly similar situation today; only even more is at stake. The same Islamic fanatics who took our diplomats hostage are racing to build a nuclear bomb. Barack Obama, America’s most feckless president since Carter, has declared such an outcome unacceptable, but his rhetoric has not been matched by an effective policy. While Obama frets in the White House, the Iranians are making rapid progress toward obtaining the most destructive weapons in the history of the world.

The gravity of this development cannot be overstated. For three decades now, the ayatollahs running Iran have sponsored terrorism around the world. If we’ve learned anything from Sept. 11, 2001, it is that terrorism in the nuclear age holds nightmarish possibilities for horror on a mass scale.

What’s more, Iran’s leaders openly call for the annihilation of the state of Israel. Should they acquire the means to carry out this inhuman objective, the Middle East will become a nuclear tinderbox overnight. The perils for Israel, for our other allies and for our own forces in the region will become unthinkable.

The United States cannot afford to let Iran acquire nuclear weapons. Yet under Barack Obama, that is the course we are on.

As president, I would move America in a different direction.

The overall rubric of my foreign policy will be the same as Ronald Reagan’s: namely, “peace through strength.” Like Reagan, I have put forward a comprehensive plan to rebuild American might and equip our soldiers with the weapons they need to prevail in any conflict. By increasing our annual naval shipbuilding rate from nine to 15, I intend to restore our position so that our Navy is an unchallengeable power on the high seas. Just as Reagan sought to defend the United States from Soviet weapons with his Strategic Defense Initiative, I will press forward with ballistic missile defense systems to ensure that Iranian and North Korean missiles cannot threaten us or our allies.

As for Iran in particular, I will take every measure necessary to check the evil regime of the ayatollahs. Until Iran ceases its nuclear-bomb program, I will press for ever-tightening sanctions, acting with other countries if we can but alone if we must. I will speak out on behalf of the cause of democracy in Iran and support Iranian dissidents who are fighting for their freedom. I will make clear that America’s commitment to Israel’s security and survival is absolute. I will demonstrate our commitment to the world by making Jerusalem the destination of my first foreign trip.

Most important, I will buttress my diplomacy with a military option that will persuade the ayatollahs to abandon their nuclear ambitions. Only when they understand that at the end of that road lies not nuclear weapons but ruin will there be a real chance for a peaceful resolution.

My plan includes restoring the regular presence of aircraft carrier groups in the Eastern Mediterranean and the Persian Gulf region simultaneously. It also includes increasing military assistance to Israel and improved coordination with all of our allies in the area.

We can’t afford to wait much longer, and we certainly can’t afford to wait through four more years of an Obama administration. By then it will be far too late. If the Iranians are permitted to get the bomb, the consequences will be as uncontrollable as they are horrendous. My foreign policy plan to avert this catastrophe is plain: Either the ayatollahs will get the message, or they will learn some very painful lessons about the meaning of American resolve.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/mitt-romney-how-i-would-check-irans-nuclear-ambition/2012/03/05/gIQAneYItR_story.html

I think they should get the bomb or no body should have it. why should russia, israel us uk france have it????

its a club made up of mostly former richest countries in the world.

it was meant to keep the 3rd world poor countries in check.

but they didn't foresee the rise of the rest of the globe.

israel, uk, france, russia, us.

all of them has more nukes than china or India. which has more population etc... isn't that fuck up. small populations with power to destroy the world dictates what the rest of the human race should or shouldn't have.

!@#$ that, more countries should have it, they'll won't be randomly bombed by the "international" community which is made up of europe and american paid allies.

who said it is LOL.

if they are smart they'll get it faster vs the slow way of geting it and people would let them have it as israel and pakistan and india has it. nk is pretty safe right now with it.

those countries who gave up it got invaded pretty quickly.

poor Libya, the dude gave it up only a few years ago.

look at Saddam only if he had it.

lessons to be learned from this is. if you don't want the us to bomb you get nukes.

real international pariahs are the ones who veto international opinion in the un.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UNSC_veto.svg

basically telling world opinion to go the f away.

even former Mossad chief is against war with Iran.

http://atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/NC13Ak01.html

A few minutes with a Mossad chief

Meir Dagan appeared Sunday on the popular US program and political sounding board 60 Minutes, where he took on Netanyahu and much of the US and Israeli right, albeit obliquely. The interview was interspersed with photos and anecdotes establishing Dagan's strong military and security credentials and his likely association with a number of assassinations across the Middle East. He had already spoken out last year against war with Iran, calling it "the stupidest thing I have ever heard".

The former Mossad chief noted, with some qualifications, the "rationality" of the Iranian leadership. Dagan is not lecturing the American public on Cartesian philosophy or game theory. He is breaking with Israelis and Americans who claim - perhaps even believe - that Iran is ruled by crazed clerics intent on ending the world who cannot be deterred from using nuclear arms. Mutually assured destruction, Dagan believes, can be obtained in the Middle East. It was the basis of the US-USSR standoff for many decades, which kept conflict in check until the fall of the communist regime.

Dagan has followed relations with Iran for decades. He knows that Israel had strong ties with Iran under the shah and also for many years after the mullahs came to power in 1979, as Israel helped in the long war against Iraq (1980-88). The breakdown in relations did not come from a change in ideology or policy in Tehran; it came from a political shift in Jerusalem that, following the destruction of Saddam's army in the First Gulf War, suddenly - and perhaps erroneously - saw Iran as unchecked and dangerous. Iran soon became an enemy.

In case you get your news from Brooklynian, I feel obligated to inform you that I perceive the onset of war to be closer than ever.

I hope I am wrong.

...if we go to war, this will be our most formidable foe in decades. The lyrics of The Doors remain relevant 40 years later.

The sanctions are working!

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/02/world/middleeast/irans-rial-plummets-against-the-dollar.html?hp&_r=0

While no civilians should have to pay for the military aspirations of their government, if these sanctions create a hungry and angry populace it could result in some civil unrest and some "new thinking" by the government. If this happens, the sanctions "work".

...conversely, the public could blame their new hunger on the US and Israel, furthering their resolve to devlop nuclear weapons. Voluntary military enlistments could soar, and the public could cheer on the existing government.

Governments often find money for the things they want most. If Iran's wants to develop nuclear weapons, it will likely sacrifice things like child education to get them.

...our government isn't much different.

Iran has not threatened the USA. On the contrary it is surrounded by enemies at every border: