They are asking for war.
They're likely to get it. They're not North Korea. They have no bargaining chips.
John Kerry in response said "Don't rush in to war with out a plan for peace" "I'm sure if it's OK with France and Germany, I don't see any problem with them joining the nuclear club."
Iran is in a horrible situation, and the mullahs know it. We know it is backing al-Sadr and other "insurgents". We know that it is supplying intelligence and money to terror organizations. We have every reason to expect Iran would supply nuclear capabilities to our enemies. We probably have the information now to build the case. And unlike Iraq, the extent of corrupt ties with France, Russia, Germany and other "powers" is greatly less than with the UN food-for-oil corruption that characterized Iraq. In fact, the Muslim fundamentalism threatens Russia (a threat Iraq did not pose).
This means less foreign opposition to regime change in Iran.
But the worst sign for Iran is $45 per barrel crude. The world economy tanks at that number (or grows too slowly to support incumbency). When Iraq shuts down two Persian Gulf pipelines in the face of Iran-supported "freedom fighters", the endgame for the mullahs is in sight.
I predict coalition troops on the ground in Iran before next summer and an active opposition ready to return Iran to a western-style economy and government.
With Iraq, Libya and Iran at full pumping capacity, spot prices for crude will be in the 20's, and the GOP candidate will be viable in 2008.
They are asking for war.
They're likely to get it. They're not North Korea. They have no bargaining chips.
What are the bargaining chips of North Korea? Saving South Korea? I don't see much difference in what Iran's bargaining chips might be?