They aren't hiding their intentions here. I think it's a more prudent course to take them at their word and make hard decisions (not necessarily war) now, rather than wait till the nukes are flying and figure things out then.

And yet there are people out there who believe that Iranian nukes are a Bush lie to get us into a war with Iran.

The lie is all the talk of an "immanent" threat when all the intelligence puts them at 5-10 years away from producing enough uranium for a single bomb.

as for this:

If it hopes to tame Iran, the United States must rethink its strategy from the ground up. The Islamic Republic is not going away anytime soon, and its growing regional influence cannot be limited. Washington must eschew superficially appealing military options, the prospect of conditional talks, and its policy of containing Iran in favor of a new policy of détente. In particular, it should offer pragmatists in Tehran a chance to resume diplomatic and economic relations. Thus armed with the prospect of a new relationship with the United States, the pragmatists would be in a position to sideline the radicals in Tehran and try to tip the balance of power in their own favor. The sooner Washington recognizes these truths and finally normalizes relations with its most enduring Middle Eastern foe, the better.

Well gosh, that sounds almost exactly like what us dirty hippies have been saying for years. Maybe next time you guys can skip all the screw ups and just do what we suggested in the first place. It'll save a lot of lives and a hell of a lot of money.

"All options are on the table"
"We will do what we are doing, illegally, if need be"
Two sides of the same coin. Call it Belligerent Diplomacy.

James & Ray seem to have the best idea, which is better than the best bad option.

what might constitute a level of proof that would support a preemptive attack, or is it just a rhetorical gimmick to oppose all preemptive strikes?

I would say that at a minimum you will need to know what is being attacked any why. Israel the what and why when they took out Iraq's nuclear facility. So far with Iran we have neither.

And do you mean to imply that it is the US that is the problem when it comes to “serious” negotiations with Iran? I mean, the EU sans sabers, much less saber-rattling, couldn’t manage to reach an accomodation with Iran, even with their superior diplomatic sophistication and willingness to accept all responsibility in perpetuity, so how are we supposed to?

Because of the fact that Iran knew that the EU didn't really matter without the US. They snubbed the EU as an attempt to get recognition from the US that they are equals at the negotiating table. It's the same reason N.Korea wants one on one negotiations, and why the US continues to avoid it.

(Essay length response deleted.)

"Who persuaded Ronald Reagan to trade TOW and Hawk parts for the return of US hostages held in Lebanon?"

What you are describing is called a “preventive attack”. Preventive attacks are not in general moral nor are they justified under the laws of war.

If we had reasonable proof (proof, not inference) that Iran had nuclear weapons, the next time that Ahmadinejad made one of his frothing “wipe Israel off the map” statements (presumably appealing to the peanut gallery), I would support a nuclear attack in force of Iran. I have not seen such proof. If you've got it, bring it out. The world is waiting.

James, re: the quote from Ray Tayekh and your support for it. It's nice to see that others agree with me.

If you require metaphysical certitude, that's not available. It will never be available. Not even if nuclear-armed missiles with “Made in Iran” start raining down on Tel Aviv. If you require proof beyond reasonable doubt, that's not available either. We don't have a smoking gun, eyewitness testimony, or any other real, hard proof.

I do think that a preponderance of the evidence supports the belief that Iran has a nuclear weapons development program and I've posted extensively on that and, I think, made the case pretty well.

I don't think that level of proof is enough to support a preventive attack. I think it's more than enough to support sanctions and the financial sanctions we're imposing on the Iranians seem to be having some effect. The Russians latest move is an indication of that, I think.

I also think it would be prudent to stop with the saber-rattling and do some serious negotiating with the Iranians. We both have legitimate interests in the region and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future.