Iran and the nuclear debate

With the talk of Iran and it's nuclear program, it put me on the road of thought about what is the right option.
Iran claim it's nuclear program is for peace and power purposes, but it still leaves a hint of weapons suspicion, to enable it to be able to negotiate with the Western powers, as always, led by the USA. Israel is obviously on the brink of air strikes against nuke facilities, contending that Iran will be a danger to the country, should it nuke up. This is a valid argument, seeing that Iran would like nothing better than to send Israel to Mars, and they have said as much. It is no secret that the hatred between Israel and Iran run deep and they have clashed before.


With this in mind, we also know that Iran is led my fundamentalist leader. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, their president, is no stranger to controversy. His human rights track record is tainted to say the least and he is known to crack down on political opponents. Iran's supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, is just as extreme, if not more so. Thanks to sanctions, Iran produces it's own weapons, among them short, medium and long range missiles- which could theoretically carry Nuke warheads the desired distances. Israel is well with striking distance of course, as are some Western countries.
Whether they would take this step is unknown. We know that in Iran, martyrdom is supported and celebrated, but would the leaders go to the extreme of launching a nuclear attack, knowing that the return volley would kill them, most of their population and Iran would be a glow in the dark bit of barren ground. 

The problem with extreme leaders, is that they are unpredictable.
It is common knowledge that Iran supports terrorist groups like Hamas. Therefore, there is a realistic danger of, if not giving them weapons directly, sharing information and/or materials, that could assist in the building of some crude nuclear device, to be used on Western targets.

The Western options are not that rosy. Currently sanctions are in place, but seem to deter the nuclear program little. Negotiations are always the best option, but these can be dragged out and perhaps Iran may seek more than the West is willing to give. All the while, the nuclear program marches on.
Then there is the option Israel is rooting for- military strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities. The problem is that it will not end there, and Iran will retaliate. A war will draw in the allies of both countries and an expensive and drawn out campaign is in nobodies best interests. This will send oil prices sky high as well. SO, the military  route does not seem viable, unless it is to deter a first strike from Iran.

North Korea have admitted to having at least a mushroom-cloud making bomb or two. In this case, though, they are using their nuclear program to manipulate the west. Again, they have extreme leaders which are unpredictable and have an intense hate for the USA and all that is associated with it. As it is, North and South Korea have a very uneasy ceasefire. Not having oil though, North Korea is of less importance than Iran is. So negotiations will take longer and talk of a military strike will on materialize, once South Korea is threatened.


It is a difficult situation. Who decides what countries can and what countries cannot have a nuclear arsenal? Wrong or right is a subjective point of view. I do support the military option, once ALL other options are exhausted, but even then, is this the correct way to go? As we have seen with Afghanistan and Iraq, wars are costly and they usually drag on. The ripples are felt worldwide. Having said that, can you really allow one country to openly threaten another with war and not respond? There are no easy answers and Iran holds the cards at present.