[Olog-hai]

The main (liberal) argument against military action is that it would set Iran's nuclear program back only a few years, and that Tehran would retaliate directly and via surrogates, drawing the U.S. into another unwinnable war. Many (liberals) fear also that Iranians will rally behind their regime with nationalist fervor, dashing hope of regime change for decades and turning Iran's largely pro-Western population against the West once again, to the mullahs' great benefit.

Paragraph fixed.

We should not conclude that a nuclear Iran is inevitable

Why not?

The mass uprisings in 2009 - known as the Green Revolution - have dissipated because few protesters saw any hope of mustering the force necessary to defeat the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and Basij paramilitary forces who brutally enforce Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei's authority

No . . . they dispersed because the USA didn't support them materially and fell silent while the paramilitaries cracked down on those who were protesting. Besides, the vast majority of the Iranian population supports the Mullahs.

The rest of this article has liberal-sounding solutions. No sale.

[nuconvert]

“Besides, the vast majority of the Iranian population supports the Mullahs.”

Really? Who told you that? The vast majority of the population is under the age of 30 and does NOT support the mullahs.

“We should not conclude that a nuclear Iran is inevitable
Why not?”

Because to assume that it’s inevitable means that you stop trying to prevent it and all you do is think about how to live with it. And that’s Wrong.

I wish inserting the word ‘liberal’ made your paragraph accurate, unfortunately, it doesn’t, as there are plenty of conservatives who seem convinced of those arguments as well (though, I don’t necessarily agree with them)