" ... So you do think that Iran poses a threat to other countries. ..."

Threats are not predicated on decades or even years; they come, and they go, by the day, minute, hour, second. Every nation is a threat to it's neighbors, including the friendly ones. You can make a very persuasive argument that your neighbors become more dangerous the friendlier they are; certainly history (and divorce court) would provide you with almost unlimited ammunition on that point.

" ... Then why don't you support the west using military power (as a last means) to stop Iran from developing nukes? ..."

Mere possession of a weapon has never, by itself, made any nation a threat (and in war, everything is a weapon; population, food, geography, transportation, your resources, your friends, and perhaps the best weapon of all, your enemies can be manipulated to act in your own interest).

I don't think anyone, even the Pentagon, fear a nuke in the hands of a reasonable man; it's the essence of deterrence, and although they don't like it, they also realize the vital role it's played to prevent nuclear war despite the numerous conflicts, including those involving one or both sides armed with nukes, over the past 60 years.

There are thousands of books and essays on the subject of nuclear deterrence, and I'm confident you will find much better arguments in that literature than you're likely to find from me, or anyone else; we are, after all, posting in a computer forum.

Once you realize that, then you will understand the job of those who have an agenda to attack Iran. The job is quite simple; portray the nation and it's leaders as unreasonable men, and you can then go ahead and build support to deny them any weapon, and by extension gain support for "preventive" attack (and it's not necessarily a nuclear weapon; the identical tactics are always used to take, say, a shipping lane away by occupation).

In Iran's case, the emphasis seems to be on portraying as unreasonable it's President. Like all politicians, he often makes speeches in his native language intended for domestic consumption. Jesse Helms said the US should invade Canada; but no one did. So, how much do you believe the rhetoric of Mohammad Khatami, who rails against those whom his countrymen consider enemies, but whose nation has never attacked anyone, including during the last 35 years of fundamentalist rule, despite plenty of lucrative spoils nearby and Soviet-like manpower reserves. When they were attacked and after a brutal, bitter war, they sued for peace almost immediately as soon as they managed to drive the invaders past the original border.

Perhaps that's the real reason; Iran is not aggressive enough. Perhaps the US is disappointed that Iran did not occupy the hundred or so km west of it's old borders, thereby embracing their Shia brothers in Iraq, and eliminating the major cause of ethnic chaos we see today in Iraq. But, the Iranians are stubbornly satisfied with the borders as they were. Hmmmmm.

I'm not getting the evidence of belligerence needed, so obviously the rhetoric must be stepped up.

It's irrelevant how true your portrayal is; lies are as valuable as the truth and both are used indiscriminately by belligerent nations and always have been. Nor are we, as mere mortals who only understand the language of, in this case, the accuser, likely to be privy to the truth, even if it did matter.

Our jobs as citizens is to insure that our own leaders are counted amongst the "reasonable men" and not the "unreasonable men"; were it to be the latter then our own weapons are a danger to us, let alone others.

In any case, the war of words and the flurry of accusations is neither new, surprising, or unexpected.

Essentially, what it comes down to is, do you believe George Bush and his planners and advisors are reasonable men in possession of the truth? And if you do, then what is the answer?

Personally, I find the nuclear strike scenario unsettling, not because nukes might be used, but because it may be seen as a tactic admission by the US to the Iranians that they have no other viable military option. On that basis alone, we should hope it's simply a responsible contingency plan, as any military must do and as any government must consider; it's irresponsible if not outright treasonous not to look at "all options". Then the reasonable men prevail, and history is written.

 

and in the case of Iraq, "phantom" WMDs were enough "provocation" for the U.S. led invasion
even though UN inspectors were on the ground and doing their job (not being helped out too much by Saddam et al, but crazy is as crazy does)
US and GB daily fly over missions had taken their toll on Saddam's military
effectively he was a toothless lion in a military sense w.r.t invading other countries

not saying that Saddam was a good guy, but if not being a good guy is now criterion for invading a country, the list is gonna be really long

 

Interesting twist.......

Iranian President writes to Bush
NASSER KARIMI
Associated Press
Tehran — Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has written to U.S. President George W. Bush proposing "new solutions" to their differences in the first letter from an Iranian leader to an American president in 27 years, government spokesman Gholam-Hossein Elham said Monday.

The letter was sent via the Swiss Embassy in Tehran, which has a U.S. interests section, Mr. Elham told a press conference.

In the letter, Mr. Ahmadinejad proposes "new solutions for getting out of international problems and current fragile situation of the world," Mr. Elham said.

Mr. Elham did not mention the nuclear dispute, the major issue over which Washington and Tehran are at loggerheads. The United States is leading Western efforts to pass a UN Security Council motion censuring Iran for refusing to cease enrichment of uranium.

It is the first time that an Iranian president has written to his U.S. counterpart since 1979, when the two countries broke relations after Iranian militants stormed the U.S. Embassy and held the occupants hostage for more than a year.

On Sunday, Mr. Ahmadinejad renewed Iran's threat to withdraw from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty if the UN Security Council imposes sanctions over its nuclear program.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060508.wirannuke0508/BNStory/International/home