I have considerable respect for Juan Cole, but here, he has understated the long term threat from Iran or the evidence that Iran is seeking nuclear weapons capability. While I agree that Iranian talk is more bellicose than its actions, it remains a nation oppressively governed by hard line ideologically inflexible theocrats. It would be unlikely to engage in first use of nuclear weapons, but entirely likely to become embroiled in regional conflicts where its ability to project a nuclear threat would permit it to impose its ambitions on others. Furthermore, acaquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran would encourage a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, and would make a mockery of attempts anywhere for international pressure to hinder the nuclear ambitions of other states - a very unfortunate step in the wrong direction.

I believe we can dismiss as fantasy the notion that Iran only seeks nuclear techonology for peaceful purposes related to energy. Iran is almost the last nation on earth that needs nuclear power, given its oil reserves, its incessant lying about its program to date, and the obstacles it must overcome to develop a nuclear-supported economy.

There is certainly no excuse to push for a military response to Iran's nuclear quest, but there's no evidence I'm aware of that such a response is being contemplated in the U.S., or would be sanctioned by us if launched elsewhere. There has been some saber rattling by Israel, but again with little evidence that the Israeli government is seriously contemplating an attack on Iran. More likely, Israel is trying to pressure the U.S. to put economic pressure on Iran with the expectation that we will be more likely to do that if we are worried that Israel would attack Iran unless we act.