This seems like a well reasoned op-ed:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-op-muravchik19nov19,0,1681154.story?coll=la-opinion-rightrail
He suggests NOT taking over Iran but bombing (non-nuclear) their 1500 nuclear facilities. Their obtaining a bomb may embolden them and start a cold war much like the previous. Likewise it seems likely terrorists will be given nukes to carry out “God’s Work”. Saying we can bomb them back won’t work if they smuggle small nukes instead of using missles.
I was wondering what others think. I’m not a war-monger, but there is no effective global police. Global police should be able to stop terror whether by countries or individuals, and the current setup allows friends of the criminals (e.g. china, france, soviets in this case) to veto the action.
This is like saying that someone is comitting a crime like rape or murder (and actually in the case of Darfur) but because they know someone, it is OK. THat is totally wrong. The UN or other global police force needs to have specific, non-vetoable parameters for police actions.
The option is to NOT do anything, and this state, which is the premier sponsor of worldwide terrorism is likely to use the bomb (nukes) at least on its neighbors (Israel). We went in and took out Libyas weapons plants, the Israelis took out Iraq’s nuke plant (back when we were Saddam’s friend 🙁
And there is not really a Sunni-Shiite rift except in Iraq, as Iran is sponsoring Hezbollah and Hamas, primarily Sunni.