Iran's nuclear program began during the era of the Shah, and blossomed into a plan that included the building of 20 nuclear reactors. During the Iran-Iraq conflict, two of these unfinished reactors were bombed in Bushehr, while through the 1979 revolution, the Iranian nuclear program has gone through stops and starts, its current guidelines seem to include the building of 15 power reactors and 2 research facilities. Since 1992, Iran has compiled with IAEA and allowed routine inspections of its facilities and progress. According to an IAEA report, "the Director General was informed by Iran of its uranium enrichment programme, which was described as including two new facilities located at Natanz, namely a pilot fuel enrichment plant (PFEP) nearing completion of construction, and a large commercial-scale fuel enrichment plant (FEP) also under construction" (June, 2003). This was the first time the Director had seen these plants. It has been argued recently, especially by Israel, that such developments in a nuclear program within an Islamic fundamentalist country should be put to an end, by any means necessary.

The Bush administration have implemented the same form of thinking and named it "forward deterrence" which is their answer to any situation or country that could pose as a threat to national security. Unlike Iraq and the situation there, many Americans know very little about Iranian politics and Iran, therefore public opinion would sway against the use of operations similar to those used recently in Iraq.

Public opinion is also low on preemptive force considering they are still waiting for information and proof of Iraqi's hoarding of Weapons of Mass Destruction. For these reasons, I feel that it would...

India and Pakistan have had prolific nuclear programs and are more of a threat to each and the region; acting like two fighting boys over a toy in Kashmir. North Korea is another country on America's list of 'possible threats' and has been showing more aggression within its nuclear program than Iran.
The use of preemptive force in Iraq came after years of UN inspections, and countless efforts by Saddam Hussein to thwart these inspections and a media run circus of innuendoes and probabilities that led many in the world to doubt whether Saddam had any real WMDs or nuclear programs in effect. U.S. intelligence said otherwise, and with the new Bush Administration it was obvious the top of their agenda was to return to the Gulf and take care of unfinished business.

According to Stephen Walt, "the deeper root of the conflict is the U.S. position that Saddam must be toppled because he cannot be deterred from using weapons of mass destruction (WMD)." (Foreign Policy, Jan-Feb, 2003.) He goes on to state that many agree that "deterrence will not work in Iraq" but "the belief that Saddam's past behavior shows he cannot be contained rests on distorted history and faulty logic. In fact, the historical record shows that the United States can contain Iraq effectively -- even if Saddam has nuclear weapons -- just as it contained the Soviet Union during the Cold War" (Foreign Policy, para5.)

In our search for justifying preemptive force, we have had to look…