Like I said, in the 1980s people said that Iran was only a few years away from a nuclear bomb.

In the 1990s, people said that Iran was only a few years away from a bomb.

Why should I believe you that they are closer now, when all those previous predictions have proven false?

The premise behind the nuclear non-proliferation treaties is that it's possible for a country to developer nuclear power and nuclear medicine facilities without being on the path to nuclear weapons. The inspection regime under those treaties has (as you and others say) failed with Iran.

If what you are saying is true, then the NPT has failed. Inspections are insufficient to provide oversight. Why and how have they failed? Are there any other countries which have circumvented those inspections under the NPT?

And as for "rogue nuclear programs", I am not confident that there is a nuclear weapons program in Iran. The information I've read sounds like it's the same quality of information that lead people to say that Iraq had a nuclear weapons program.

But even so, let's look at other "rogue programs" and see if they have gone cancerous. (Mind you, some cancers are benign, so your analogy isn't that good to start with.) Apartheid-era South Africa developed its nuclear technology in secret. We didn't bomb them. They dismantled their program, and became signatories of the NPT.

Israel is suspected to have nuclear weapons, and is certainly capable of developing them. It has an official policy of being ambiguous. It's believed they contributed weapons development information to South Africa. Do you call that program a "cancer" that needs to be excised? BTW, Israel is not a party to the NPT.

NBC reported that Israel funded the M.E.K - designated a terrorist group by the United States - to assassinate Iranian nuclear scientists. http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/02/isr... . How much state sponsored terrorism is acceptable before a country goes rogue? (And if MEK pays off enough US Members of Congress, can they be removed from the list?)

The Soviet Union had a whole lot of nuclear weapons and were state sponsors of terrorism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-sponsored_terrorism#Sovie... . Why weren't they "rogue"? (If they were rogue, why didn't we bomb them? Oh, right - because they could hurt us back. That's also why we don't bomb North Korea; they have a lot of weapons pointed at South Korea. We prefer to bomb or invade those countries that don't have their knife on someone 's throat. Which gives perverse incentive for a country to develop nuclear weapons, if they don't want to be under the thumb of the US.)

Pakistan is a state sponsor of terrorism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pakistan_and_state-sponsored_te... . They have nuclear weapons and are not signatory to the NPT. They used to be on the US 'list of countries which repeatedly provide support for acts of international terrorism' until we needed them to fight the War on Terror, when they conveniently became good guys. It's reported that North Korea bribed top military officials in Pakistan to get access to nuclear weapons information: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/pakist...

Pakistan has a rogue nuclear weapons program, is a state sponsor of regional terrorism, and doesn't protect its secrets that well. Why don't we bomb them?

Based on this, it appears that all Iran needs to do is fall in line with the US military interests and it will no longer be rogue. Is that right? If not, what does Iran need to do to have a non-rogue nuclear program, in the same way that Pakistan does not have a 'rogue nuclear program' that justifies bombing?

"Iran's terrorist activities" is besides the point. The question is if they have a nuclear weapons program.

Famously, chemical weapons weren't used in WWII, but heavily used in WWI. It is possible to be the harshest of enemies, at active war with them, and still think that some weapons are outside the pale.