I think Afghan and Iraqs been exhauted here and elsewhere.
I dont agree that Iran has any serious foreign policy goals, but so what if they did? Thats
realpolitik for yer -every country is fundamnetaly out for themselves.
Strategically, it would be a disastor for the US or UK - or for anyone else that is not a strong ally of Iran - if Iran developed a nuclear weapon. It would be a strategic success for Iran if they did get nuclear capability, but only if that is indeed thier intentions.
Nuclear weaonry serves the purpose of defense. Only the United States has used them aggressively - during the Cold War nuclear weapons were strategically 'used' for thier deterrence value. They were never produced - nor are they produced - for the purposes of use although those powers need to make that use possible and credible for deterrence to work.
Only Little Boy and Fat Man (and a bunch of other nukes used in tests) were developed for the purpose of use. All the others were developed for the purpose of deployment and the possibility of use.
Nuclear deterrence is a defensive measure. As of yet thier is little evidence that Iran is indeed developing a nuclear weapon - its a possbility - but we should not assume that thier intentions are aggressive.
The United States is Irans main rival. Iran and the US have got poor relaitons with each other, but the United States has overwhelming military capibility. A nculear weapon would provide adequate defense.
All of americas convntional aggressive forces (politicians will claim they are defensive) are only strategically useful if they can be used successfully. A nuclear equiped Iran would prevent thier successful use. Strategy is the purpose of using force or the threat of force to achieve ones will. If Iran grows strong with the development and deployment of nuclear weaponry, the strategy of the United States - which is to serve the interests of the United States - will have failed.
Iran is not a totalitarian state. It may not be fully democractic, but its President and Islamic Ayatollahs do not have supreme power and do not direclt Iran for thier own purpose or for the purpose of any form of Islam. Islamic laws exist in Iran to protect thier islamic heritage and thier society based upon that heritage, not to force it on the outside world.
They give support to groups like Hamas and Hizbollah, but thats irrevlent as the US gives aid to Israel. Im not taking sides over that conflict, but neither can claim the moral highground.
The US is the rival of Iran, therefore beating it with a stick and hoping it will back down is paradoxical - using the threat of force to prevent them from gaining a defensive measure. It wont work.
What is needed is the carrot. The allies of Iran, Russia and China - with pressure from the US and the EU - must work with Iran to end any ambitions it may have peacefully. Attacking Iran with those allies will not only harm Iran and its allies, but its rivals and wont work.
It must be done peacefully by the international community. If the use of force is deemed as a necessity - those sponsering nations must go through the UN Security Council and get approval. If the use of force is not sanctioned by the UN - because of a veto by European countries, Russia, China or anyone else - then force can not be used.
It worked with Saddam, but Saddam did not provide the major powers with any benefit that was worth fighting over - probably the reason why the war was able to continue without SC approval.
But Iran is different. It has good and improving relations with both China and Russia, and if the US or EU uses action that could jeopordise those relations then the possibility will remain that they may intervene to secure thier relationship with Tehran. This does not necessarily mean that they would attack the US or physically defend from it, but following any airstrikes both China and Russia would be forced to boost Tehran's defenses against future attack - possibly witht he supply of a sufficient NBC deterrence or with conventional weaponry - which would not only serve to protect Iran from external threats, would may also give reason for the government to clamp down on any internal threats it may define.
Im not saying here that Iran should be allowed to develop nuclear weapons - another nuclear equiped state is not ideal. But, my argument is that if we want to deny Iran that possibility, then it must be achieved peacefully or through the UNSC. In this situation, the US is not the worlds policeman and any actions it may take without proper jsutification would itself threaten world stability.
I have purposefully left out any mention of human rights and democratisation for two reasons.
Firstly, the situation is so important that it far outwieghs any concerns of either - peace and stability is more important and the above can only be achieved peacefully.
And secondly, mention of human rights and democratisation can not only cloud ones political and strategic judgement, but is so blatanty used that it only serves as a tool for propaganda. America has pumped millions into a new propaganda campaign against the Iranian government. The nuclear situation and and hopes for democracy or humans rights improvements are two distinct elements, and fusing them together only creates complications in an already complex situation and only serves the purpose of Americas strategy.
I could also say, as a third reason, that American claims that Iran cannot gain nuclear weapons because of its lack of demoracy and any human rights abuses is ignoring the fact that China, Russia, North Korea, Israel, the US, Pakistan, India, Great Britain and France are not 100% democratic and have all committed human rights abuses from time to time. Also a few of these nations have a worse human rights record and lack of democratic rights than Iran.
Iran is being painted as an aggressive nation with an irrational leader. But of course, the United States is a peace loving country with an extremely rational, peace loving and intelligent leader!!!!
For peace, you must prepare for war.