Thus, somewhere along the line we have to make some assumptions about what we believe.

For this post I would like to assume that we don't know for sure what Iran is seeking, but there is some reason to worry about weapons ambitions. I'd also like to assume that we think it will take them some time to reach weapons.

Thus, at this point in time, I would like to suggest the following about the EU:

Interests:

a) The EU would prefer Iran not to reach nuclear weapons, as it is hard to see it improving anything. This may be very hypocritical, but I think the interests of states often are hypocritical. I would prefer that the EU was different, more ethical in foreign policy (and being here on ET is part of working towards that better future) but for now I think we have to take this as read.

b) In the short term at least, the EU is not interested in messing the world up further. Actions in Iran should ideally not endanger oil prices or set the stage for a region size conflict.

The ideal outcome is an agreement with Iran that allows peaceful development of nuclear power, enables reasonable monitoring to alert if they are seeking weapons and all this occurs without warfare that could push Iraq even further into the mire, or really mess up oil prices.

I do not think it is the US intention to attack Iran, or start a war.  It seems to me the very clear intention is to try to work with a consensus of leading countries that develop a common view, to the extent possible, and agree a course of action toward Iran.  That process has been underway for over a year--and it certainly has been challenging.  But it seems the effort, which is really led by the EU-3 and Russia to work this through diplomatically, possibly moving to a UN sanctions approach as a club, might have a chance of working.  (and certainly Iran talking to Russia now about Russia producing the nuclear material for them could be very positive)

I'm certainly hopeful that a common front toward Iran, backed up by efforts and data from the IAEA, and then just applying step by step more pressure to Iran to hold them accountable to their nonproliferation agreements,,,might be successful.  The kinds of pressures that could be applied have been well outlined by the parties--bring it to the security council, potential of sanctions,,,and those could be raised level by level.

If the US and others have similar views that it will take Iran an absolute minimum of 5 years to have a weapon, it also leaves time for these diplomatic steps to work.

Why is the US apparently so insistent that this be dealt with now? If we assume for the sake of argument that the administration neither intends to exploit military action for political gain nor is following an ideological crusade, what is the motivation?

Then how do you not address it now, with it being more and more clear from our scientific discussion that Iran's intentions are to weaponise.  And the comments of Iran's president that Israel should be wiped off the map would seem to clearly show the intention to be a very evil actor in the Middle East if they have a nuclear weapon.  He certainly can not be trusted, nor would it seem the allatoyah's can be either.

And what do we expect Israel, the threatened party to do if this issue is not addressed immediately, in the sense of starting the process.  Israel clearly knows that these threats to them can be real, and deadly.  Obviously history vereifies that.  And their state is committed to protection.  I'm afraid we would back Israel into a corner where they felt they had to act on their own, if the world community does not address this.  And it's hard to see that being a good thing.

If all of these efforts fail, or end up in UN resolution after resolution that are not lived up to, then it's certainly possible that the US stance will harden toward Iran, and military options will be on the table.  It's not a certainty, because even within the Republican party their is a large minority, IMO, that would like to see the US pull back from international involvement--simplisticly, to protect the borders, put up a starwars system (if such a thing could ever really work), and take a view that if the rest of the world doesn't want to address dictators with evil intentions, then fine,,,let them work it out themselves.  But it's also possible that some version of Bush's more involved world view would win out--the world is too small now to try to ignore dangers, because they will get you in the end, in a 9/11 style attack, and probably worse, particularly if nuclear weapons are in the hands of people like Ahmadinejad.

As to the Democrats it seems very hard to see where they will stand.  The next few elections may argue the point of should the "war on terror" be handled as a war, or should it be treated as criminal actions.  Is Bush' policy that if a country harbors and supports terrorism, they are an enemy of the US correct, or not.

So the politiical stance three or four years from now is not a certainty, and will clearly be influenced by events.  But if I had to bet right now, I would think some version of it is a war, the US is an enemy of countries that support terrorism--that will be the drift of American policy.  I don't see the same economic holocaust happening to America that others above see, and would force America to pull back--just IMHO.

But I think the military options are the last ones for the US, and certainly not the preferred one, for all kinds of reasons.

which foreign companies would benefit from iran's moves to nuke power?

is there an energy cartel in iran like chez nous?

does sustainability come into the picture? are there any solar power factories in iran?

with that oil wealth they could be a beacon for the world in the use of alt. energy, and win all kinds of points for their worldview, as last i heard, islam claims to be more environmentally respectful than other religions.

i have no evidence of this, sadly.

israel pioneered drip irrigation; i'd love to see the middle east pump trillions into becoming the world's premier solar industry advocates, instead of investing in silly vegas-on-steroids glitzfests like dubai, which just apes the worst of our excesses and jacks it up some more.

that's what happens when the capital built on the sweat and lives of a people gets shuffled off to the middle east for the last 30 years, just to go 'vroom, vroom'.

when will we have leaders of wisdom?

'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty

It would be interesting if someone could take a stab at this one.

A sizable part of the US economy is based upon the military/police sector. Federal government spending is about 50% of the budget.
Here is a graphic:
http://www.warresisters.org/piechart.htm

The military is also one of the few manufacturing areas that hasn't been "outsourced." Procurement policies require key items to be built in the US. The military firms spread the manufacturing sites around the country to insure that local politicians all support the local facility since it brings jobs to the region.

A recent TV show explored the situation. The most telling remark was from a recently retired DoD official who had been a contract auditor. He said that many of the projects were holdovers from the cold war and totally useless. As a matter of fact they were worse than useless since they diverted funds from real needs.
The host asked him what could be done to change things, he was at a loss for ideas. He just sees the situation as beyond control.

Under Bush the military budget has increased 48% without even including the cost of the wars. So the short answer as to why Iran? Because it is there...

Policies not Politics
---- Daily Landscape

The jist of my comment was suggesting that we need to add Israel as one of the players, to consider their interests and motives.  They are potentially a very agrieved player in these scenarios and their actions could change everything.

Lets not forget that Iran's nuclear program did not start with Ahmadinejad or even the Islamic Republic and in fact it goes back to the 1970s, when the program to diversify Iran's energy resources started with the encouragement and assistance of the US and European govts. Iran isn't doing anything today that it hadn't planned on doing long ago when the Shah was in power,

See: Past Arguments Don't Square With Current Iran Policy. By Dafna Linzer. Washington Post Staff Writer Sunday, March 27, 2005
www.washingtonpost.com/ wp-dyn/articles/A3983-2005Mar26.html

Iran has a legitimate economic case for nuclear power:
See: The fuel behind Iran's nuclear drive
By David Isenberg http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/GH24Ak02.html

As for the alleged "secrecy" of Iran's nuclear program after the revolution, Iran was in fact cooperating with the IAEA and seeking the necessary technology openly until the US pressured the IAEA and other countries to withdraw assistance. see: Iran needs nuclear energy, not weapons, in Le Monde Diplo Nov 2005
http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:Wv7d_FdiMH0J:mondediplo.com/2005/11/02iran

In fact if you listen to US claims, its not that Iran IS building nukes, but that Iran is acquiring technology which COULD BE used to make nukes...in 5 to 10 years. Any technology COULD BE used to make nukes, and any country could do so in 5 to 10 years.

Thus far the only actual "evidence" of a weapons program consists of a diagram supplied by Agha Khan, which was not sufficiently detailed to be of much use, and such diagrams can probably be found on the internet (the technology of bombs is not really a secret!) Then, there's the "laptop" which conveniently fell from the sky and contains all the evidence necessary to convict Iran, from designs for nuclear test mine-shafts to missiles warhead designs to "Green Salt" projects  -- all on a single laptop, mind you, that was supposedly stolen from an Iranian nuclear engineer by someone who got it from someone who is now dead and unable to verify any of it --- oh, and the US decided to release selected bits of this laptop info to the IAEA at the last moment, right before the file went to UNSC. Yellow-cake from Niger, anyone?

IMO, and I would appreciate comment, Israel simply will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon, or to achieve a technology point where they have passed a hurdle that means they can achieve a nuclear weapon.  President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, from the perspective of someone leading Israel (and of course these are my opinions) has denied the Holocaust, and set a goal of wiping Israel from the map.  Given that, and given the reality of Jewish history, Israel will take any action that would prevent such a clear enemy from gaining weapons that could destroy them.  If you think about their history, and their mission as a country, no leader of Israel could allow that to happen, if there was a chance of preventing it.

There are obviously questions of Israel's ability to effectively strike Iran's nuclear program, but from what I have read, they can reach them through air strikes.  They may assess that while they can not wipe out all nuclear facilities, they can set Iranian programs back years.

I'm afraid the die has been cast on this one, and Israel is planning those attacks now.  Two things could prevent or delay those attacks: 1. they will be assessing just like we at ET have, the time for Iran to develop deployable nuclear weapons, or, if there is such a thing, the time it will take Iran to achieve technological knowledge to do so, yet do it in a clandestine way.  2.  Will there be any progress, and significant progress, on the nuclear talks with Iran.  But Israel's trigger will be much shorter than our earlier discussions.

I don't think this is an issue, the existence of their people and their country, where Isael will depend on the input of the US or any EU countries.   If they see the Iranians moving ahead while they negotiate with EU3, Russia, and the US, they simply won't wait.  From Israel's perspective, if there is going to be a war, now is the time, not years down the road with a nuclear armed Iran.