Here are three articles on Iran going nuclear and the hysterical US reaction. I have to agree with Helena Cobban on this.

Iranian nukes: are we scared yet?
by Helena Cobban

Hands up anyone who is not terrified that "Iran might be on the brink of acquiring nuclear weapons". [She looks around her.] Am I the only person sitting here with my hand up? Sometimes, it sure seems that way. The entire tone of the public discourse here in the United States is to stress two things:

[more]

Iran Threat Grows Amid U.S. Divisions
The lack of consensus on how to deal with Tehran's nuclear program is complicated by allies' opposing views and the stakes involved.

Deep divisions within the Bush administration are hampering U.S. efforts to defuse the growing nuclear weapons threat posed by Iran, a cross-section of Middle East specialists say. The differences — between those advocating a tough, confrontational approach and those convinced that engagement on a variety of issues is the best way to stop Tehran's quest for a nuclear weapon — are so strong that nearly three years after President Bush declared Iran part of an "axis of evil" threatening the free world, his administration still has no widely accepted approach to the problem. The search for common ground has been complicated by a variety of factors, including the sharply opposing views among America's closest allies and the stakes involved. Arms control specialists and regional analysts argue that a nuclear-armed Iran could endanger Israel's existence, touch off a regional arms race in an already unstable Middle East and — because of Iran's medium- and long-range missile technology acquired from North Korea — very quickly pose direct threats to Europe and the United States.

[more]

US's impasse over a 'nuclear' Iran

Washington's latest buzz about Iran is that there is no consensus on whether to confront it about its nuclear aspirations, or engage it with a view to abandoning it. Such a description creates an impression that the administration of President George W Bush could be serious about engaging Iran and is interested in initiating dialogue. However, if the past performance of the current administration establishes one reality, it is that there is not likely to be dialogue with Tehran in a second Bush administration. It should also be noted that the arms-control community was stunned this month to hear from the United Nations' watchdog International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) that Iran "planned to convert 37 tons of milled uranium, known as yellowcake, into a compound that can [not only] be used in a peaceful nuclear power program but also can be used to make weapons-grade enriched uranium". Washington's non-proliferation community lives in a make-believe world of addressing heady issues without injecting a heavy dose of reality into that discussion. There are issues related to Iran that, when not viewed from the viewpoint of realism, portray a different - or even an incorrect - picture. One such reality is the conventional wisdom in that Iran, by going nuclear, presents a serious threat to Israel. Needless to say, Israel plays a leading role in making sure that such conventional wisdom not only stays alive, but that it constantly drives America's policy that ensures that Iran never becomes a nuclear power. No one bothers to ask why a nuclear Israel is not a threat to Iran, or why a nuclear Iran's paramount purpose would be to threaten Israel, knowing full well the implications of such threats for its own survival.

[more]