The UN should give Iran an atomic weapons-backed guarantee against a pre-emptive strike by Israel.

Thank you Brian for launching such an interesting topic. First, I admit that Israel has a militarily aggressive government and a history of violence with its Arab neighbor states, which includes various attacks against civilians. However, unlike Lebanon, Syria, and Palestine (which are terrorist staging grounds for direct attacks against Israel), Iran is a physically distant country with fairly limited and conventional weapons. And while Iran may be providing support to "terrorist" organizations, that is extremely different from a military threat. (The US has been supporting terrorists like the Taliban precisely because it is easier than going to war.) And the "attacks" on Palestine are the military equivalent of bullying: rolling tanks over unarmed civilian children. This does not indicate a willingness to engage a symmetric opponent with conventional arms (Iran). The only attack Israel could realistically initiate against Iran would be via air - cruise missiles and long-range fighter/bombers. Iran is capable of retaliating in kind, so no outside intervention is warranted. Israel has no credible reason to launch a nuclear strike - everyone knows a nuclear attack is not a military attack, it is simple genocide (and political suicide), and if Israel launched such an attack no Western nation, including the US, would continue to support them. Second, political threats and military posturing are meaningless. The United States has been threatening and posturing for decades, but initiated military action comparatively rarely due to the financial cost and political unpopularity of such actions. For instance, the US has played a very small military role in Africa over the last fifty years, despite terrorist bombings of our embassies and numerous humanitarian disasters. Third, the concept of a "guarantee" against military aggression has always proven disastrous in the past. (See World War I.) We cannot guarantee against Israel's actions because we do not control Israel's military. If Israel did initiate a military disaster, I cannot imagine the United States requesting Russia or China or France to attack Israel on our behalf. It makes no political or military sense. It would indicate poli-military weakness and incompetence on our part. The only possible non-political defense of Iran would be for us to begin secretly arming the Iranians with a missile defense shield. But of course, every time we secretly give weapons to someone, it turns into a disaster. (See Afghanistan, Israel, Iraq, Nicaragua.) Lastly, if the pursuit of nuclear weapons is a justification for military incursion by a nuclear power, then you are arguing that we should have invaded North Korea. However, we maintained a diplomatic course in North Korea and have recently succeeded in disarming their program without violence. Iran is not a flashpoint for future war. Iran is a religious yet fairly modern democratic country, and if we would only stop calling them evil and threatening to bomb them for no reason, we would be the best of friends. Israel, on the other hand, is a flashpoint for war because it has such a vicious policy of attacking civilians and threatening violence. (See list of UN resolutions against Israel: http://en.wikipedia.org...) Given the choice, the safest course would be to disarm Israel and force them to pursue diplomatic relations with their neighbor states. The US has repeatedly prevented the establishment of a 2-state solution to the Palestinian question, even when all other parties were in favor of it. The US needs to pull out of the politics of the Middle East, including Israel, and allow viable solutions to arise from within.