Oh ye of little faith
The jig is up. The non-proliferation bluff has been called by a second-generation socialist dictator and the nuclear powers who so jealously guarded their destructive privilege for decades are revealed to be holding nothing. This really should not be surprising, given that none of the countries who developed or are believed to have developed nuclear weapons had ever had their programs attacked during their various development periods.
Furthermore, of the 15 nations which possessed significant nuclear weapons programs but did not go on to complete a functional weapons system, only Iraq was ever attacked. So, the odds that the Nuke Club was speaking loudly and carrying nothing were always weighted heavily in Kim Jong-il's favor, the infamous Axis of Evil speech notwithstanding.
North Korea's nuclear test - assuming that it was, in fact, nuclear - was not merely a massive blow to the credibility of the Nuke Club, but also highlighted the nonsensical nature of the case for a military strike against Iran. Indeed, when one takes the time to consider the justification for the current Iraqi occupation, it quickly becomes apparent that the Iranian nuclear program can be as easily justified and on the very same grounds.
The neoconservative World Democratic Revolution is predicated on two basic concepts. The first is the Wilsonian notion of a people's right to self-determination. While not a primary justification of either the Afghani or Iraqi wars, it is the main basis of both continuing occupations, which are theoretically in place to allow the people of those two countries to peacefully and democratically determine the way in which they will be governed now that the oppressive regimes that previously ruled over them have been removed by American force.
While the Bush administration's insistence on an undivided Iraq raises some serious questions about its genuine commitment to this right of self-determination, it nevertheless remains the primary rationale for the continuing occupation there. The reason the insurgency remains a concern is not due to any threat it poses to the USA, but to that which it poses to the infant Iraqi democracy which theoretically represents the collective will of the Iraqi people.
However, it is impossible to claim that a nation has a right to determine how it will be governed and simultaneously deny that a nation has a right to determine how it will defend itself, let alone supply its power needs. Even if a nation does not possess a democratic government, it is entirely possible that the will of the people would support its government possessing nuclear weapons, perhaps on the basis of national pride but more likely out of a preference for the familiarity of dictatorial rule over the violence and chaos of a military invasion and occupation by a foreign power.
The second pillar of the World Democratic Revolution is the idea that people everywhere want to be free. This, unfortunately, is arguable even in the United States due to its current flirtation with a host of abominable government powers ranging from domestic spying to secret trials and torture. If Americans, with their Constitution and a tradition of liberty that spans hundreds of years, are perfectly willing to accept an all-powerful central state that intrudes upon the lives of its citizens at will for fear of a terrorist attack on a single city, it should not be hard to imagine that the autocratic religious dictatorship of the mullahs does not seem unbearable in comparison with the thought of tactical nuke strikes on dozens of locations around Iran.
But the most important reason that the United States should accept Iran's acquisition of nuclear weapons is that it simply has no other choice. The technological imperative can be delayed for a time, but it cannot be denied. Not even the powerful idea behind so much of the support for the United Nations, that world government can prevent the mass destruction caused by a nuclear war, will suffice to prevent anyone with the means and the desire from acquiring the weapon that endows the owner with autonomy on the world stage and freedom from fear of American military action.
Finally, many Republicans argue that an attack on Iran is justified due to the perceived probability of an Iranian attack on Israel. But George Bush, being a Christian, should know better than to worry about Israel even if there was anything he could do about the Iranian bomb. If the modern Jewish state truly is the prophesied Israel of the Bible, then it will survive by the grace of the Lord God of Israel even if every single Arab and Islamic state in the Middle East launches nuclear missiles against it.
It takes an amount of faith to believe that North Korea and Iran are more interested in inoculating themselves against American military force than in immolating the world. But it takes a very blind faith indeed to believe that there is any effective means of permanently preventing a nation-state from going nuclear once it decides to do so, without resorting to utter barbarism.