1) Agree with Iran that they can do whatever they want. Let them become a uranium exporter under whatever terms they want. Let them build reprocessing plant and bombs if they want.

In short, do nothing because it's 'too dangerous' and, after all, 'nobody trusts Bush anyway' (as some have said).

2) Work through the IAEA and the UN to try to ensure that Iran follows its obligations under the NPT. If it's determined that they haven't, then refer it to the UNSC. If a consensus is reached that Iran must be called to account, then impose sanctions.

This is the "called to account" that I was referring to (at this point). This is where we are now, but the IAEA seems to be strongly divided so it's not clear that they will take any action. And if it reaches the UNSC via a divided vote rather than a unanimous recommendation, it's not terribly likely that they'll impose sanctions. It's not clear whether the East/South and West can come to an agreement on what to do about Iran soon.

This could default to #1 if a consensus for action to have Iran honor its commitments can [edit:]not[/edit] be reached.

3) Give Iran a short deadline to accept full, unconditional inspections and a total cessation of nuclear reprocessing activities. If they don't comply, prepare for military action.

This would be extremely difficult unless the military action was restricted to air strikes. Action like this, reminiscent of Israel's attack on Iraq's reactor, might solve the immediate problem, but the Iranians apparently have buried a lot of their nuclear facilities so it would not be easy.

Many believe this is Bush's preferred alternative. I don't, but it's hard to tell whether it will happen if things don't improve. It's clear that some do prefer this approach though.

4) Invasion of Iran to remove the mullah's from power and to end Iran's nuclear programs.

I don't think anyone is seriously contemplating this, except for a few people at the Pentagon and military think tanks and universities whose job it is to do warfighting scenarios.

I read you as advocating #1 because we have no moral standing to tell Iran what to do. I think that is a dangerous position given Iran's governmental support for foreign organizations that preach and commit violence.

Iran has no legitimate need for uranium reprocessing facilities at this time. They've demonstrated that they will skirt safeguards so even a civilian power program is a hard sell with me unless they have a change of heart. So far, they haven't.

Yes, the rules are different for the bomb-holding powers that drew up the NPT and offered nuclear power to others under nonproliferation conditions. Them's the breaks. Life's like that sometimes.

My $0.02.

Cheers,
Scott.

Yes, I'm aware that under the NPT and various other treaties we're under obligations to eliminate our nuclear weapons. The preamble to the [link|http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/npt/text/npt2.htm|NPT] says:

Declaring their intention to achieve at the earliest possible date the cessation of the nuclear arms race and to undertake effective measures in the direction of nuclear disarmament,

While it's a noble goal, the text there is a bit nebulous as to what needs to be done and when.

Iran has drawn the rational conclusion that a known bully and coward will be most reluctant to assault a nation with the means to make an attack very, very costly.

There's no doubt that that's part of their calculus. And there is a logic to it if one doesn't want to work with the existing world order. (They'd advance a lot further a lot faster if they cooperated with the West more, IMO.) However, remember that North Korea and Pakistan and Iran started their nuclear activity long before GWB was in office. Iran's apparently had a covert nuclear program [link|http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2003_11/Shaffer.asp|since the early 1970's] - one that continued after the Shah's demise.

[Begin tongue-in-cheek:]

Given that, we yet again see that it's all Jimmy Carter's fault.

[image|/forums/images/warning.png|0|This is sarcasm...]


Cheers,
Scott.