Well here is my take on Iran and it possibly wanting nuclear weapons.  First of all I have to say that I am not that optimistic when it comes to the theocracy in Iran and their peaceful intentions.  There are plenty of examples of that regime supporting terrorist groups like Hezbollah in Lebanon, it issuing a death verdicts like the fatwa issued over Salman Rushdie and it actively pursuing and killing publishers of Salman Rushdie's book "The satanic verses", all over the world. There is also a lot of circumstantial evidence, which I have linked to in previous comments, which point to Iran having ambitions of develop nuclear weapons.  

Some people say that this is exactly the same situation prior to the invasion of Iraq in 2003.  Well I'd say not quite.  There was no conclusive evidence of Iraq ever having a fully operational nuclear facility ready to enrich uranium.  The Saddam regime had the ambitions of becoming a nuclear power and did what they could to make it happen but had a long way to go.  The IAEA and indeed the Iranian regime, have verified that they now have the capability and the intent to enrich uranium themselves and thus the evidence is there plain to see beyond any reasonable doubt.  What seems to be a striking resemblance to the Iraqi cases is the call for immediate military action and the mantras of danger and urgency being put forward.      

Now how is the international community to deal with such a possibility?  First of all if there are countries I would not like to see develop nuclear weapons, Iran is certainly on the top of my list for the reasons mentioned above.  Still, I don't think that there is a military solution to this, at least not yet, and if it was to come to such a solution the Iranians would just rebuild there facilities after they have been bombed, thus the only lasting solution would be a diplomatic one with a mutual consent to and understanding of how this issue is to be solved.  First of all I'd suggest:

1.  That the negotiations with Iran continue even if the case are being reviewed by the UN Security Council and that the negotiations are given the necessary time and emphasise.  Still, that doesn't mean that the talks shouldn't have a time frame since that could allow the Iranians to filibuster and prolong the negotiations while they continue their research.

2.  If the talks are forestalled and there seems to be no solution in site, that the UN Security Council impose sanctions on Iran that have a timeframe until they are willing to comply or enter into meaningful talks.

3.  If nothing comes out of the sanctions and no meaningful negotiations are initiated with no prospect of a solution, that the UN Security Council discuss alternative ways to the sanctions, which could mean limited military action.  

A military action, if decided, should be limited to air strikes, possibly in collusion with Special Forces, on the nuclear facilities in question and only conventional weapons should be used.  A limited military action should only be considered as an absolute last option.  

Bitsofnews.com Giving you the latest bits.