The Guardian's Polly Toynbee states there is absolutely "nothing to be done" about the "mad mullahs of Iran". She degrades (correctly, in my opinion) the ongoing negotiations as "fantasy" and cites North Korea as an example as to why nuclear weapons are the manifest destiny of dictatorships:

If Iran is determined, no one can stop it becoming a nuclear power, alongside Israel, Pakistan and India. The crazed dictator of North Korea shows the way: nuclear weapons make nations unassailable. Why on earth would Iran not want them too?

So has Polly, a denizen of the left, come to her senses about the uselessness of promises from dictators, of the kind which paralyzed the free world long enough to allow North Korea to gain nuclear weapons?

Reality suggests there is a difficult choice: if you cannot win, give up at once to minimise the damage. Get off the high horse and start to negotiate terms on which Iran can be allowed to enrich uranium. It amounts to turning a blind eye to their weapons potential while striking a deal that saves their face, affords them some dignity and entices them economically into becoming a more stable force.

Ah. So if we cannot get the "mullahs" to promise not to develop nukes, we should at least get them to promise not to do anything BAD with them. The "mad mullahs" (her term) may be so insane that we can't possibly trust their promise not to develop nuclear weapons, but yet we should put 100% trust in any promises not to use such nuclear weapons.

Trust them so much, in fact, we should be paying them not to use them, in one form or another. Sweet deal that: we pay them money for having nukes, and they promise not to use them (until, of course, they really want to).

One wonders what the terms of Polly's deal would be -- her article is woefully short on specifics. What are we preventing? Is it "don't nuke Israel and we'll give you X?" (And what would X be?) Or is it rather "go ahead and nuke Israel, just not Europe?" Or is a condition of total pre-emptive surrender and request for favorable dhimmi status for European liberals? There's probably a reason this little detail is missing from her analysis.

And then what would we do when other rather nefarious nations gain nuclear weapons, as they undoubtedly would try to do, given the accomodating path Polly suggests? Would there be a reverse bidding war among dictatorships, to see who Europe should pay the most not to nuke someone?

The mind boggles.

All the ususal leftist set-pieces and distortions are there... blame the history of the situation only on the US and UK (and not the Soviets, of course)...

The Anglo-American coup knocking over Mossadegh in 1953 to enthrone the shah was another shining example of how western crusaders for democracy prop up dictators in exchange for oil, afraid of the elections they pretend to champion.

(Fact check: Mossadegh was appointed, not elected, and had violated the Iranian constitution by seizing control of the entire government, with apparent backing by the Soviet Union. But never let the facts of history interfere with a good round of "blame the west".)

... present the US as acting only based on childish emotions, in response to some dusty event in history ...

American pride is easily bruised, unused to taking such humiliations as the 1979 embassy-hostage crisis that lasted 444 shaming days and the Iran-backed Beirut embassy attack that slaughtered 241 marines.

(Fact check: If the US had it's pride "easily bruised" by the kidnapping of its hostages and slaughter of marines, it certainly didn't show: the US did nothing in response to these situations. I guess we are to believe this "bruised pride" supposedly submerged in 1979 and only poked its head up 25 years later as the sole reason America won't trust the promises of Iran's "mad mullahs". So why doesn't Toynbee trust them either, I wonder?)

... present Iran's bad attitude ALSO as the fault of the US...

On its side, Iran will never forgive the US for backing Iraq in the bloody eight-year Iran-Iraq war.

(Fact check: Iraq was a Soviet client, and received heavy technological and military assistance from the USSR. Saddam has long envisioned himself as a new Nebuchadnezzar, with a similar desire to rule the entire region. Far from being 'backed into a corner', Saddam himself started the Iran-Iraq war once he saw Iran no longer had US backing. But, once again, the USSR is conspicuously absent from Polly's account. Being a leftist means never admitting guilt.)

... and distort the current conversation:

Meanwhile, the Americans are grinding out ritual bellicose statements, Donald Rumsfeld refusing to rule out air strikes. The Israelis warn that Iran will pay "a very heavy price" and Iran replies that if anyone attacks "we will give the enemy a lesson that will be remembered throughout history."

Who is making "bellicose statements"? Why Donald Rumsfeld, of course! When he is asked if he would rule out ever using air strikes, he replies, wisely: "No." (Presumably, he was supposed to have promised no harm would ever come to the Iranian nuclear effort. I'm sure Iran would then negotiate much more earnestly once the "mad mullahs" were thus comforted.)

On the other hand, Toynbee admits Iran promised: "We will give the enemy a lesson that will be remembered throughout history." Doesn't that sound a bit more warlike to you? But, given a choice between Rumsfeld's simple "No" and Iran's dire, world-shaking, nuclear-enhanced, militaristic sabe-rattling, Toynbee clearly knows where to lower the boom.

Her argument would be merely laughable if Europe weren't filled with similar idiocy.