The editorial of this week's Paris Match has an interesting comment concerning Iran's unwillingness not to go nuclear.

How to deal with Ahmadinejad and his provocations?
War?
Certainly not , becaue it would be incomprehensible and devastating.
Incomprehensible. How can we explain to the public opinion and to ourselves (if we have any consciousness) it's legitimate to wage war to a country under the pretext it's going to build a nuclear weapon while the US, France, Israel and others acting as world order sherifs have possessed it for years and in huge numbers.
Tens of thousands of warheads stockpiled in the US, Europe, Russia and China against an hypothetical one made in Teheran! The whole system is based on double standards which , whether you like it or not, is logically perceived as an entente between nations owning nuclear power to dominate those who don't have it and threaten those who are going to have it.
We can seek other arguments such as saying the iranian regime is not democratic (well, Almadinejad won elections with merely 15% of the votes) But how can one claim democracy is an authorization criteria, a licence to kill, a nuclear weapon ownership licence?

Last night, I saw Shirin Ebadi (nobel peace winner) on TV and she said Iran won't use the nuclear weapon against Israel (just like Israel never used it against its enemies). The point is: if ever a nuclear weapon were used in the Middle East, it would inflict as much dammage to the other side as to its own side.