From an ambassador representing a country on the front lines against Iran, in the Washington Times:
In unusually blunt remarks, Ambassador Yousef al-Otaiba publicly endorsed the use of the military option for countering Iran's nuclear program, if sanctions fail to stop the country's quest for nuclear weapons.
"I think it's a cost-benefit analysis," Mr. al-Otaiba said. "I think despite the large amount of trade we do with Iran, which is close to $12 billion ... there will be consequences, there will be a backlash and there will be problems with people protesting and rioting and very unhappy that there is an outside force attacking a Muslim country; that is going to happen no matter what."
"If you are asking me, 'Am I willing to live with that versus living with a nuclear Iran?,' my answer is still the same: 'We cannot live with a nuclear Iran.' I am willing to absorb what takes place at the expense of the security of the U.A.E."
Mr. al-Otaiba made his comments in response to a question after a public interview session with the Atlantic magazine at the Aspen Ideas Festival here. They echo those of some Arab diplomats who have said similar things in private to their American counterparts but never this bluntly in public.
The world has stood idly by and allowed this situation to reach a critical point. I am not one to use World War II analogies lightly, but if ever there was a clear lesson to be learned from the run-up to World War II where the nations of Europe had a relatively painless opportunity to get rid of Hitler and save themselves 50 million dead, this is it. The UN has refused to deal effectively with Iran - partly because some nations are cheering them on, hoping they get rid of Israel and maybe hit the US with a nuke or two.
In the end, it will come down to what Israel and the US do about it; there never was really any other realistic scenario.