I may be dumb in your eyes, but I would've went to war anyway. This was actually Congress, not the people, that was the issue. Just do what Bush did, send your army to Europe, even if you're not officially at war.
Let's not have this discussion here (it's not the place for it), but I wouldn't call you dumb. All I'll say is that were you President in, say, 1940 and actually done that, I would have applauded you for your bravery and idealism, and would desperately hope that the Japanese still attacked Pearl Harbor before the next election.
In my opinion, the problem with Iran getting the atomic bomb is that they are not a rational, modern government. They might actually use their bomb against their perceived enemies. I think some of you are thinking like modern westerners - "Hey, we all want peace, right?" It's like suicide bombers writ large, a radical shia Muslim regime might accept the consequences of counter-attack if they can just destroy their blood enemy, Israel.
Remember, these folks don't think like us. What we regard as common sense is totally alien to them.
First, you are empirically wrong. The Iranians are supremely modern and rational, and anyone who has studied their regime in detail, regardless of their national origin or political inclination, agrees with this assessment. These men wish to stay in power, and they do not wish to rule over a nuclear wasteland. Additionally, actually nuking Israel forces them to give up a very useful whipping boy for when they're in trouble at home. When the Iranian government feels it needs to distract the populace from human rights abuses, high inflation, high unemployment, and brain drain at home, they often step up the rhetoric condemning Zionism and Israel and all that jazz. While it's not the only such enemy (the United States serves in a pinch), it is the best external enemy for the purpose: it's being restrained by the United States, it's nearby, its atrocities (in Iranian eyes) are obvious and numerous, and so on. Antagonizing Israel doesn't really hurt their prospects of getting concessions out of the West, either (unlike a serious agitprop campaign against the US) How can you agitate against Israel if Israel isn't there any more? Israel is a far more useful enemy alive than dead. (Incidentally, the dynamic is quite similar with regard to Iran for a right-wing government of Israel).
Second, the Iranians may or may not want peace. But wanting peace is irrelevant. Time and time again, they have shown that they want
security, which is quite another matter. They want (as I said) to continue governing the country, and they want to further their country's interests (as they see them). They want not to be attacked and they want to stay in power. More broadly, they would like to take on the role of regional hegemon, a position that would guarantee their security more or less permanently. A nuclear weapons program advances all three objectives: the program is popular among everyday Iranians, a bomb would be an effective deterrent (they calculate), and having nuclear capacity would make them much more credible regional leaders.
Beyond that, there is no reason to believe that anything else has entered into their calculations; they have thus far proven themselves to be consummate and highly pragmatic geopolitical chess-players. When the US invaded Afghanistan in 2001, the Iranians actively helped us out, funneling arms and money from the West to the Northern Alliance (the Taliban were a tremendous nuisance to Iran, as they were backed by the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence and rabidly anti-Shiite to boot). At the Bonn Conference that year, Iran secured the support of several groups and tribes, including the influential Hazaras, for the American choice for interim President, Hamid Karzai; a stable Afghanistan was in Iran's interest at the time. However, after the US invasion of Iraq, Iran started playing a double game to keep the US semi-bogged-down in both places (thus ensuring that the US would not be a threat to Iranian security for the time being), by simultaneously supplying insurgents (including the hated Taliban) but also providing real support to the new American-backed regimes in both countries. Tehran, significantly has actively disavowed direct interference in Iraqi politics (although it could easily do so), and has tacitly allowed Ayatollah Ali Sistani to take the lead in Iraqi Shiite politics. Sistani has been quite insistent that while Shiite politicians should certainly turn to their faith for guidance on political matters, the clergy should keep out of politics--not exactly what the Iranians want to hear.
