There is no way you can realistically make the proposition that if Saddam was in full power in Iraq, and the U.S. military sitting in Afghanistan, that somehow Iran would have decided that hey, we don't need nuclear weapons after all.

In your response below, you say that if we were not in Iraq:

...we might still have the military capacity and diplomatic credibility to keep the Iranians from doing this. Now all we can do is stand by helplessly by and watch as Islamic fundamentalists develop nuclear weapons.

I will leave aside the laughable idea that somehow "diplomatic credibility" impresses tyrants around the world. This idea is one reason liberals shouldn't be allowed within miles of foreign policy. You might note that the U.N. and Europe, at least as far as the Left is concerned, possess nearly infinite "diplomatic credibility," and yet the Iranians are making a laughing stock of that organization, and thumbing their noses at every one of their diplomatic endeavor.

Now as for military capacity, what exactly would you propose we do with it? Do you realize that our Navy and Air Force are at nearly full capacity? We have all the capacity we need for bombing facilities or neutralizing weapons production. Or, if you are claiming we don't have the capacity to deal with Iran, does that mean that the Marines and Army are the "capacity" you are talking about? So the only thing you think we should use to get Iran to cooperate would be the threat of a ground invasion?

Invade Iran? Based on the same kind of information from defectors and others that gave us the WMD data on Iraq? If not that, then what?

Do you ever bother to follow a concept to its inevitable conclusions? The Democrats are better off when they leave ideas floating in midair, like saying they would deal with Iraq "better" than Bush would, and then drifting off into the ether when details are asked for.