Why are republicans concerned about a nuclear Iran?

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

The fear is that Iran is getting very close to a bomb. There's no question that the military option would set Iran back. Of course it wouldn't completely eliminate the idea of a nuclear Iran forever. I've said before, they President is putting process over progress. The United States has seen deal after deal on the Iranian nuclear issue, but we haven't actually seen the program dismantled. Appeasement naturally takes pride in appeasing. "We're doing this without the military and through diplomacy," is music to the Coasts's ears.

http://www.juancole.com/2012/09/netanyahu-in-1992-iran-close-to-having-nuclear-bomb.html

Who with credibility is claiming Iran is close to a bomb? Do I even need to bring up what Netanyahu was claiming in regards to Iraq's nuclear capabilities in 2002? Are we really going down the road once more letting politicians and "experts" with obvious agendas like Bibi and Dick drive the debate and go on about not letting smoking guns turn into mushrooms clouds? Really?

The reality of the situation, however, begs a tougher approach. Striking Iran's nuclear program *and* any stockpile of ICBMs we can find will put the program back decades. Battening down the hatches on sanctions, recommitting to democracy promotion, and strengthening the hands of both the United States and our allies is the only way we're going to really end the Iranian regime's dedication to nuclear proliferation.

The President's foreign policy on Iran has been lacking in every regard. He's negotiated from a position of weakness by clearly signalling he doesn't have the stomach for meaningful military action. He's opposed tougher sanctions that have bipartisan support. He's shied away from effective democracy promotion because such programs smell of the second Bush Administration. He looked at the Green Revolution in 2009, not as an opportunity, but as a nuisance that distracted him from his domestic agenda.

The most insufferable thing about Republicans on the Iranian issue is how they pretend to be on the side of the Iranian people.  Democracy promotion....you're going to bomb their homeland, killing hundreds of Iranians at the very least, some of their top scientists too no doubt, and then you're going to promote democracy...in all due respect, what legitimate democratic reform group with any chance of success is going to accept help from the foreign country that just bombed their homeland.  I'm not trying to be a dick, I legitimately think conservatives just haven't thought this through.  I'm sure most don't even realise how much the Bush administration's efforts on this front were just a useless symbolic effort that went absolutely nowhere.  

And they may not be supporters of the regime, but how do you reconcile the fact that the people protesting and getting killed in the streets during the Green Revolution absolutely support Iranian sovereignty and Iran's right to develop nuclear energy and technology?  An attack on their nuclear program is certainly far more likely to have the effect of rallying around the flag for these people than instigating any sort of reprise of 2009.  

I personally think that Iran's leaders would be dumb to attack Israel with its nuclear weapon.  And since the US will never allow Israel to get attacked by Iran, such a scenario results in their cities being flattened.  So saying Iran will do that is simply fearmongering.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Some combination of just plain stupid or a crazy warmonger.

Referring to the type of Iranian leader who would do that?  I think we should look at history.  The Russians were able to use the threat of applying nuclear force.  What matters most is not the bomb itself, but the threat of deploying it.  If the Soviets and Americans never got to a situation were they actually used nuclear bombs, then I don't think Iran and America will either.