Well it’s likely that UNSC action won’t mean a damn because of Russia and China. So even if the EU wasn’t all talk (won’t hold my breath), what should the approach to action on Iran by those who are willing to act be?

J. Kende: Iran is a complicated situation. The rules need to be set clearly so that it is clear exactly when Iran will be reported to the UNSC. Once there, we have legitimate, international, multilateral proof that diplomacy has failed and the Iranians are working towards the bomb. Keep in mind, this is regardless of whether a resolution gets vetoed by Russia and/or China. The official diplomatic route would be exhausted and thus leave military action as a (internationally seen) legitimate option which we then would have to consider.

Keep in mind I’m not a big fan of attacking Iran, but I by no means rule it out and if it comes down to it, then we have to. But the US needs to help make clear to the world’s other nuclear powers that the club doesn’t need anymore members. At least we’ll share some common interests there and thus we need to try and get a few other countries on board to either force them to stop, or to attack their program.

Again, as someone who’ll be learning Farsi over the next few years, is dying to go to Iran, loves Persian food and people, I’m not a die hard action of force, but as a Realist, it may indeed be the only option. Unless we want to go down the regime change path…

I had military action in mind as regime change can occur through a variety of means.