Iran appears to be throwing out plenty of unprovoked threats themselves, and have been covertly developing nuclear arms since long before the invasion of Iraq, in violation of a treaty they signed, and any plausible US invasion threat. Their expressed perception of danger from US invasion (which is at this time is not possible let alone desired) is an excuse to develop nuclear arms to threaten/dominate their neighbors, Isreal first, of course, then any Sunni Arab states. A nuclear arms race among religious fanatics wouldn't be exactly ideal, but the material and knowledge is definitely available to those willing to pay the price, and eventually a determined effort to get these weapons will take place.

Knowing that Iran has already signed and agreed not to develop nuclear arms, then reneged on that, why does one believe any other missed foreign policy opportunities would have had a different result? Iran has more to fear from within, than from without.

So what do you propose, allow the Iranians their nuclear pacifier? Give them one with the expilicit threat that if they use it to attack someone we "raze Tehran".

Chirac is getting a lot of heat for saying what everyone actually knows
Not that I'm defending the fool, but I wonder how many replies this thread would have had if the subject of this interview had been named Bush?