N.Korea has nuclear weapons, Iran may be working towards building one. Maybe
Iran has not committed any aggression against any other country in at least the past 100 years.
Going with Romney’s argument that the USA needs to protect its allies and the USA needs to stop allies from being a danger to American interests then N.Korea must be attacked by the USA before Iran.
Every argument that says attacking Iran is a good idea, is more valid and relevant if the argument is applied to N.Korea.
If we look at US foreign policy toward Iran from a metaphorical perspective.
The US is a family living at one end of the street called the Smiths, Iran is a family living at the other end of the street call the Jones.
Mr Smith is worried that Mr Jones might buy a gun. Mr Smith thinks that Mr Jones might try to shoot him or his neighbour if Mr Jones gets a gun.
Mr Smith has no reason for thinking Mr Jones will attack anyone. Mr Jones has never attacked anyone before.
Mr Smith on the other hand regularly attacks his neighbours in the street in the name of freedom and security.
Mr Smith starts to threaten Mr Jones, Mr Smith says that if Mr Jones thinks about getting a gun, Mr Smith will shoot Mr Jones.
Mr Smith thinks it is okay to shoot Mr Jones if Mr Smith thinks Mr Jones wants to buy a gun.
Mr Jones buys some metal pipe for some gas lines he is installing in his house.
Mr Smith says this is evidence that Mr Jones wants to build a gun. In response to Mr Jones buying pipe, Mr Smith blocks the road stopping Mr Jones from doing business with families on the west end of the street.
Mr Smith says to Mr Jones and everyone else in the street, if Mr Jones buys fittings for the pipe then Mr Smith will treat that as a threat and Mr Smith will shoot Mr Jones
Who is acting illegally and immorally here?
Mr Jones for buying pipes and fitting for his gas work but which may be used to build a gun or Mr Smith who thinks that people cannot buy pipes and fittings unless he says it is okay?
And who is acting unreasonable here. Mr Smith with the gun who has attacked some of his neighbors recently and is threatening to shoot Mr Jones, or Mr Jones who may or may not be wanting to buy a gun to defend himself from Mr Smith?
Iran is not a threat to anyone, with a nuclear weapon or without a nuclear weapon. For the same reason Russia did not use its nuclear weapons against the west neither would Iran.
To say Iran is a threat is paranoia, Iran has not attacked another country in 100 years it has however been attacked itself several times in the past 50 years.
If an individual had been attacked violently in the past 5 years directly or indirectly by the same person. Would it be unreasonable for that individual to take steps to defend him or herself from the party that has attacked him/her before?
It may be reasonable to assume that the individual may see to retaliate against past wrongs but that is another argument.
It is not correct for one person to continue attacking another in an effort to stop the victim from retaliating.