These words by Elliot are worth repeating:

giving Iran "as little reason to be evil as possible" won't help us. they already have no reason to be evil; no one has such a reason. being evil is wrong.

In response to some of a reader's questions:

Question 1)

assuming the threat is "real," is it entirely unrelated to the fact that America and co commit crimes of such great magnitude? and so, as a method of preventing an attack on America, should American violence in the Middle East stop, or increase?

What "crimes" and of what "magnitude" are you referring to? The daily tens of people killed in Iraq are not killed by Americans, nor are they Americans. They are ordinary Iraqis killed by criminal terrorists and co. Even the invasion of Iraq had a very temporary "increase" of American violence, and that only against Saddam's regime. The "American violence" today is directed against those who are disrupting the creation and the progress of a free and stable Iraq within some margin of error. The people of Iraq were and are not the target.

Question 2)

everyone legitimises aggression as defence. why is it any different when the "defenders" are American? to ignore the consequences of America and co believing themselves to be the legitimate world police seems to me to be grossly mistaken. libertarians do not usually accept the lies told by their government.

This has nothing to do with "Americans." It has to do with defending people's lives and freedoms. The police in a small city might also raid the criminals' command center. That the world does not (and with current conditions cannot) have a functioning and legally binding police force does not relieve the burden from the shoulders of the free nations of the world to act as one when and where they can and are morally bound to. Especially when and where the responsible "international" bodies fail to do so. Look at Darfur now. How long should we wait? Till the problem erases itself out?

Question 3)

so, why not nuke the whole of Iraq to make sure that nothing bad ever happens again? and Iran. and North Korea. and so on. this is the logical consequence of your position, is it not?

No it is not. The logic here is to protect people's lives and freedoms from those criminals who deny them these inalienable rights. Evidence: the basis and the practice of the political system, following discussions, stated goals and objectives, and the enacted policies of the major player in all this, i.e. the US. The logical consequence cannot be killing those same people -- that is the illogical consequence. You assume that the logic at work is instead an evil one that seeks to enslave other peoples for their resources etc. You are mistaken. I challenge you to present a coherent theory in support of this that would stand up to rational criticism.

-- Cyrus Ferdowsi, http://libiran.blogspot.com