The USA is, I would argue, less bellicose and interventionist than have been most of the other "great powers" of history. That, however, is a very different thing than saying that we are non-interventionist.
One factor that has proven true over the last half century is that: if you have nuclear capability, the threat of direct military action against you by the USA drops off precipitously. If you do NOT have such a capability, the USA just might thump you around a bit depending on the political context of the moment in question.
So, if you want to eliminate that kind of threat to your nation/regime/whatever, develop a nuke capability.
Why wouldn't Iran seek such? From their perspective, it is eminently logical.
Stopping them from developing such a capability is rather simple as a concept, though it might prove a bit costly in execution: conquer them. If you are not willing to bleed enough to accomplish this, then shut up and get ready for a nuclear Iran. Sanctions and condemnations, even air strikes are ultimately piffle; none of these can do more than delay Iran unless Iran itself chooses to quit the effort.
As to what to do with a Nuclear Iran, the answer is simple: accord them a greater share of power "at the table." Love 'em or hate 'em, they will have a greater say in events regionally and/or globally. So, summarizing what Kukri said earlier, we'll simply have to cope.
I put my "long term" hopes in the development of controlled fusion power and constant boost spacecraft. Barring a diaspora of sorts, we will see nuclear weapons used. Far too many of the players are well aware that the use of even dozens of such weapons will not damage the biosphere beyond repair. Therefore, the use of such economical weapons to eradicate major points of opposition becomes a tenable strategy.
Have a nice day.
Bookmarks