There has been a lot of talk lately about the United States, or the international community, taking on Iran in terms of ending Iran's nuclear designs and putting a stop to their widespread support of terrorist activity around the globe.  Yesterday President Bush said "Iran must comply with the demands of the free world and that's where we sit right now ... My attitude is that we've got to keep pressure on the government, and help others keep pressure on the government — so there's going to be universal condemnation of illegal weapons activities."   President Bush has said that the United States will not go it alone, and that "foreign ministers of Germany, France and Britain have gone in as a group to send a message on behalf of the free world."

The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed that Iran is now rebuilding centrifuges and using parts that had been briefly under IAEA seal as part of Iran's private agreement with the Europeans.  In a June statement largely written by France, Britain and Germany condemned Iran, and asked the Islamic nation to stop all enrichment production and to reconsider plans for a heavy-water nuclear reactor.  But the three European powers were surprised days later when Tehran responded by announcing that it would resume building equipment essential for a nuclear weapons program.

There is no question that Iran is building a nuclear arsenal.  That is undisputed.  The extent to which it creates problems for the rest of the world however, is in dispute.  Iran says that it has the right to develop this technology and last week issued a set of "demands" to the European leaders. 

The Iranian demands include:

• a call on the EU Three to back Iran’s insistence that it have access to “advanced (nuclear) technology, including those with dual use” — a term for equipment and know-how with both peaceful and weapons applications;
• a demand that they “remove impediments” — present sanctions — preventing Iran access to such technology;
• an assurance that the European powers stick to the commitments even if faced with “legal (or) political ... limitations” — an apparent allusion to potential Security Council sanctions on Iran;
• agreement by the EU Three to meet Iran’s conventional weapons requirements;
• and a commitment to push “rigorously and systematically” for a non-nuclear Middle East and to “provide security assurances” against a nuclear attack on Iran — both allusions to Israel, which is believed to have nuclear arms and destroyed Iraq’s nuclear reactor in a 1981 strike to prevent it from making atomic arms.

The Europeans have not formally responded to these demands, and are supposedly closer now to the US position that Iran should be brought before the UN Security Council on charges of violating the Nuclear non-Proliferation Treaty.

Iran will not stop until they have nuclear weapons.  They have been able to use the good-will of the international community to stall for time in order to develop their nuclear program.  Each day, each week that passes brings Iran closer to possession of a deliverable nuclear weapon.  This is the same country that has for years provided direct support for the terrorists in Israel.  Would Iran use such a weapon against Israel?  There is much evidence to tie them into many terrorist attacks against US interests around the globe.  They are providing safe passage and protection for many members of Al Qaeda.  Recent reports indicate that it's possible bin Laden himself is being protected within Iran.

Optimists hope for a revolution within Iran to overthrow the extremist regime now running the country.  There is a growing movement, primarily students and young people, who are working to defeat the Islamic Theocracy, but their attempts to work within the system are thwarted with ruthless action by the clerics.  While it's possible that eventually these democracy-loving revolutionaries might prevail, it could be years before anything like that happens.  Presidential candidate John Kerry said in his party nomination acceptance speech that he would be a strong leader, and that he "if attacked," he would respond with force.  Can the world afford to wait until we're attacked?  Can we sit around as Iran develops nuclear weapons and twiddle our thumbs until they send a nuclear missle streaming down on Israel?  I think not.  There may still be time for diplomacy, but based on Iran's repeated lies, deceptions, and subversive behavior, reality suggests that the time is coming soon when the international community will be forced to deal with this monster in the middle east. 

~~Right Wing Nut Job~~

very interesting. What are the options though? Surgical strike on their nuclear plants? Full blown invasion? I've read that the Israelis might strike them like they hit Iraq in the early 80's.

I do believe Iran is on the US's list of "things to do", but we're pretty well spent in Iraq right now. Whatever we do in Iran would probably include some sort of military action, or at least we would have to be prepared for that. That being the case, keeping in mind that Clinton really stripped down the military in numbers, I doubt it would be advisable to make a move now. This is another reason why it's important to re-elect Pres.Bush: so he can complete (or properly continue) the plan he has on the war against terrorism.

You'd think the Democrats would love Pres, Bush... he's doing what they only talk about... actually attempting world peace! He's not all talk and no action, that's for sure.

Good points. But it's doubtful that the size of the military will increase under President Bush. Rumsfeld has said many times that he does not want to increase the military because of costs. He'd rather spend the money on weapons systems and equipment.

RightWing,

The military SHOULD increase in numbers under Bush, although it probably won't happen soon. Many in the Army disagree with Rumsfeld's desire to eliminate some divisions. The new restructuring going on now means there need be less large units (Divisions) and more smaller ones (Brigades and Battalions). This means more (quantity) effective soldiers.. meaning qualified and ready to fight (infantry, special forces, etc.)

This also means that the Army is cutting the fat. Hallelujah! This basically means a cut in the "office" type Army jobs which by enlarge are packed with minority females. Desk jobs that clog the Army. Those jobs will be given to civilians. So this is like downsizing big government, reconstructing the Army. Cutting away the pencil pushers and turning those positions into real soldiering positions. So more actual soldier (infantry) jobs are being created this way, even though the numbers don't increase.