The concern is not “Iran’s right to develop peaceful nuclear energy,” but ensuring the program is for peaceful purposes.

Oh, really? Then why the demand to suspend enrichment that is a right guaranteed under the NPT and why the insistence that the IAEA and the NIE cannot be correct when they find no evidence of a weapons program or the diversion of ANY fissile materials? Seems to me if this was true you’d be willing to take YES for an answer. Also seems to me that if you want to address a potential WMD program in another nation, it might be productive to QUIT THREATENING TO ATTACK that nation so that they might become convinced that deterrence is not necessary. Just a thought, y’know?

Iran “must now decide whether to join us in this effort,” but Iran has “engaged in a campaign of politically motivated arrests, show trials and suppression” and “stands in the way of the justice it seeks.”

OK, great. If this is the standard to put a pre-emptive strike on the table, I want to see it applied to EVERY nation that fits that description. It’s either US Policy or it’s not, but to selectively apply that standard to specific states doesn’t make the US look particularly serious about ANY of it…

mikey