Military intervention vs. Iran.. justified?

Israel is indeed a secular democracy, but also rather belligerent. If Iran had nuclear weapons Israel would think much harder before attacking them, even with US support.

Nuclear deterrents work both ways.

Well yeah, but if Iran weren't trying to develop nuclear weapons, Israel wouldn't consider attacking them at all...

yes they would

They're our ally. Whilst I'm something of an isolationist, I will always support sticking up for our allies.

Hardly a prominent ally they are more the US's ally than ours we are kind of indifferent towards them.

Israel is not governmentally religious, and it's not a dictatorship. It's a modern democracy, with a secular constitution. They only have nukes as a deterrent

it's obvious that Iran want them for offensive purposes.

They're a modern, secular democracy with principles similar to those of our own.
Also, annual bilateral trade exceeds $3bn.

Who are Israel trying to deter exactly? With the exception of Syria (who aren't going to invade anyway because Israel would crush them in a war) and Hamas (who don't care because Israel aren't going to nuke Gaza), they're surrounded by US client states.

So what it doesn't mean we should be willing to spend British money and risk British lives on a hunch. $3bn per year is nothing anyway. Their principles however are nothing like our own.

Egypt, perhaps? They've already been in two massive wars with them, and peace was only achieved between the two countries through the efforts of the non-Islamist Anwar Sadat. Now that Egypt have an Islamist government, who knows what they might try?

There are also a host of other North-African countries who have similar attitudes towards Israel, including Morocco. They might
be very unlikely to attack, but that's really only because of Israel's military might.

OK, it's not 'obvious'. But Iran's government is extremely unstable. Believe me when I say that when it comes to attitudes towards Israel, Ahmadinejad is a pussycat compared to others involved in the highest levels of Iranian government. The various rebel factions in the country are, in fact, a million times more Islamist than Ahmadinejad: if the prospect of Ahmadinejad with nuclear weapons is a bit worrying, nuclear weapons falling into the hands of the rebel factions through any sort of coup is utterly terrifying.

I'm sure the US would love to invade North Korea, but it would completely destabilise the entire Pacific area while most like provoking Russia and China into action.

I'm sure the US would love to invade North Korea, but it would completely destabilise the entire Pacific area while most like provoking Russia and China into action.

On what basis?

They've attacked other Arab nations Unprovoked before and the us invasion of Iraq which had nothing to do with nuclear weapons despite the lies and propaganda that we were fed which is disturbingly similar to the Iran situation

Israel is not governmentally religious, and it's not a dictatorship. It's a modern democracy, with a secular constitution. They only have nukes as a deterrent; it's obvious that Iran want them for offensive purposes.

I don't get it why people think that everything a democratic country does is fine. A democratic government only(most of the times) represents its people more than other kinds of political system. But it doesn't at all represent the people of other countries. What makes them think they can decide the fate of other countries' people?

Just want to say, a democratic country may not necessarily be peaceful. It could be a warmonger.
And a non-democratic country can also be peaceful.

Well yes, but Israel is peaceful. As the saying goes, if the Arabs laid down their weapons there would be peace; if Israel did so, there would be a slaughter. The point is that if they were just left alone, they wouldn't be so heavy-handed.

Also a non-democratic country can never be peaceful; it is waging a war on its own people.

The united states is a country. It's also a democracy. This means that regimes are constantly changing. You can not talk about previous regimes actions as a reflection of current's regimes actions. It doesn't make much sense.

The Clinton Administration did try to block North Korea's nuclear ambitions and was going to militarily strike them, this is one of the reasons why North Korea signed 'Agreed Framework'. The United States also isn't omniscient and can't foresee everything. You reasons are wrong. As I said earlier, Clinton Administration was going to militarily strike North Korea but a agreement was signed. By the time North Korea really upped their nuclear ambitions (1992+), Soviet had fallen. The reason why the United States didn't bomb North Korea after it had acquired weapons was because of the possibly retaliation that could occur to South Korea resulting in possibly millions of lives lost and billions of dollars worth of damage. However, there was early belief that Bush would bomb North Korea because of his aggressive foreign policy approach but got caught up with Afghanistan and Iraq.

The United States is critical of any new nuclear powers. It's one of the most powerful weapons, why on earth would you want any nation to possess it? If it could, it would get rid of every countries nuclear weapons. I doubt the US would even military strike Iran. I think Israel is more likely considering it's track record with Syria and Iraq.

Anyway, there's no clear picture of what exactly is going to be the United States policy in dealing with Iran. People have been saying that it would bomb Iran for a very long time, there was that incident in 2007 with that unnamed Russian intelligence source. The US haven't even attacked, so I don't see how they're being very aggressive.