US Authority and Iran's nuclear ambitions

Defense of the nation from any perceived threat. It's exactly as the administration claims. They really haven't lied much about their reasons for aggression towards Iran.

The US reserves the right to lash out militarily at anyone in the world it perceives as a potential threat? The President reserves the right to take the country to war without Congressional authorization or consultation any time it perceives a potential threat?

I suspect there needs to be more.

Remember, Conservatives value strength and winning. You kill the lion, or the lion kills you. There's winning and losing, second place is losing.

By that moral value priority system, the only thing you need is a threat.

Also, when you say that the "US" reserves the right, I hope you understand why that's wrong... Not everybody in the US shares conservative moral values.

We all acknowledge every countries' right to defend itself. However, without any generalized condemnation of any political party, we need to recognize facts and reality. I have little doubt that our current Administration had bought into the self-styled "Neo-Con" world view prior to 911! That view, succinctly
stated is: " the United States, as the world's only surviving superpower, has the right and the obligation to dominate strategic regions of the world." Neo-Con phiolosophy further indicates that this elitist status,based on economic and military superiority, is a positive attribute that is beneficial to the world. This world view, though it may have been somewhat modified by real life experience, has been supportive of the need to identify nations that threaten world stability and peace, such as Iran and North Korea, but, in my opinion, was overly dependent on the threat of U.S. military interventions as a preferred response, as opposed to diplomatic communications and coordinated international collaborative interventions. Though the world view of the Administration may have been sincerely held, it is my impression that this attitude of U.S. superiority has been viewed by many as more threatening than the dangers posed by so-called rogue nations, and has been somewhat counter productive, as the invasion and occupation of Iraq have demonstrated. Nuclear proliferation is a real threat that the world must confront, but military intervention should be recognized as a last resort that should not be undertaken unilaterally.
  

OK, well, I have my own take: http://stupidcountry.blogspot.com/[…]/irans-nuclear-deterrent.html

We all acknowledge every countries' right to defend itself. However, without any generalized condemnation of any political party, we need to recognize facts and reality. I have little doubt that our current Administration had bought into the self-styled "Neo-Con" world view prior to 911! That view, succinctly
stated is: " the United States, as the world's only surviving superpower, has the right and the obligation to dominate strategic regions of the world." Neo-Con phiolosophy further indicates that this elitist status,based on economic and military superiority, is a positive attribute that is beneficial to the world. This world view, though it may have been somewhat modified by real life experience, has been supportive of the need to identify nations that threaten world stability and peace, such as Iran and North Korea, but, in my opinion, was overly dependent on the threat of U.S. military interventions as a preferred response, as opposed to diplomatic communications and coordinated international collaborative interventions. Though the world view of the Administration may have been sincerely held, it is my impression that this attitude of U.S. superiority has been viewed by many as more threatening than the dangers posed by so-called rogue nations, and has been somewhat counter productive, as the invasion and occupation of Iraq have demonstrated. Nuclear proliferation is a real threat that the world must confront, but military intervention should be recognized as a last resort that should not be undertaken unilaterally.
  

Basically imagined thought crimes on an individual or country level are what is going on right now with the idea of preemptive strike. This fits perfectly into the strict father model. On the surface our leaders are figuring that they know best and are being protective of the USA. Below the surface they are planning on continuing to exploit their advantageous financial positions within the oil and military industrial complexes. It's easy to raid the cookie jar when the house is catching fire.