How Should the United States Respond to Iran's Nuclear Program?

While there does not seem to be an immediate danger of the United States taking military action against Iran over the development of their nuclear program, there are people who argue for it, either to stop the program from succeeding, or to remove the program if and when the program succeeds in producing nuclear armaments. However, this would not be sufficient cause for an attack, and would in all likelihood just end up doing more harm to the United States.

Current Progress of Iran's Nuclear Program          

The sanctions against Iran do slow down their production of enriched uranium, yes, and do have a significant impact on its economy. Ultimately, however, Iran will gain the capability to produce a nuclear weapon. Even with the sanctions Iran has recently been able to increase the speed at which it is progressing.

Iran's President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, tours a facility housing centrifuges used to enrich uranium.

 Sufficient Cause for Attack

What we do after they reach the ability to make a nuclear weapon should depend on what they do next. The capability to do something does not necessarily imply the intention to do something. Would more nuclear weapons among the countries of the world be a bad thing? Yes. That does not mean we should attack them, though. The ideal situation would be to rebuild diplomatic ties and solve our problems with civility and respect.

A discussion on diplomacy with Iran from PBS NewsHour

In any instance where one option is to cause harm to other human beings, that should be the absolute last resort. That is not saying that we should allow Iran to bomb us before we make a move, but the United States should not attack another nation until it has made actual overtures of violence against us. International Humanitarian Law does not specifically dictate that it is illegal to attack, but refraining from making the first strike follows the intent of the law and the interest of preserving peace.

Change in U.S. Outlook on War            

Historically, it the U.S. has done best in wars that it did not instigate, wars which were joined because of attacks against the country or to assist allies in wars that have to potential to involve the U.S. Most of the wars prior to the Korean War fall under these criteria, and the U.S. came out ahead in all of them.

It was with the Cold War that this changed. The U.S. began to enter conflicts with the justification of maintaining liberty, partially succeeding by that standard in Korea and failing in Vietnam. In even more recent years, with current and past conflicts in the Middle East, the U.S. has engaged in conflict in order to prevent potential attacks against the country, which has resulted in protracted conflict with dubious gains. A war with Iran would likely follow the same pattern.

I am of the opinion that peaceful prevention of a conflict is the best way to come out ahead. Even if Iran is hostile in character, until it becomes hostile in action there are still other options.
Violence should only ever be used as a last resort.