Saddam said Iraq was destroying its weapons that we in violations of UN sanctions forced upon that nation in 1991 but offered ZERO proof of this other than "We're doing it, but to allow outsiders to watch would be an insult to your national pride." And as we all found out later Saddam hadn't destroyed all his banned weapons, although the evidence is now lying in pieces scattered throughout the desert in Kuwait since most of the two dozen or so scuds fired into Kuwait fell apart in air and the rest were shot down. And of course coalition forces in Iraq have found hundreds of mortar and artillery rounds containing sarin although in this case the Iraqi's inability to maintain their own equipment worked to their advantage because the gas was so degraded it was no longer a viable weapon.
I think you are playing games here:
1) The proof was in the UN inspectors inability to find these weapons however it wouldn't have mattered what the Iraqi's offered as proof as long as the people making the accusations were going to ignore it.
2) By the US post war inspectors own admissions the Sarin shells they found had been buried since about 1992-93 and were about as dangerous as a muddy pond.
Seriously its time to face up to the fact that Iraq's WMD's simply didn't exist in any appreciable qualities and most of what has been touted as proof by the few desperately looking for justification has turned out to be dual purpose items that could have made WMD's, Baby food or pesticides.
If Iran is building a peaceful nuclear program why do they need a heavy water treatment facility? Light water reactors would be cheaper and produce power at similar levels per dollar spent, but can't be used for making highly enriched plutonium for nuclear weapons. They've been offered all sorts of perks to end their current program but have refused. And from what I've seen of these reports, they're saying the Bush administration is "over exaggerating" but not fabricating the story. To me that says "Yes, Iran is working on a weapons program, but they're at least a decade away." as opposed to five years. I still think military strikes are not the option though. The Iyotollahs are extremely unpopular amongst the younger generations and right now Iran is experiencing a population boom. For every five 18 year olds entering the work force in the next five years, there will only be one job available. Who led the Iranian revolution in the 80's? Iranian students who were unsatisfied with the current regime. Hmm...
1) What exactly is illegal about a heavy water plant?
2) So what if they have been offered perks to drop the program, they have decided they want nuclear power and they want it as a self sufficient program rather than relying on other nations to keep it going I personally support the idea and hope that if New Zealand ever goes down the nuclear path (I hope we don't but I suspect we will eventually) we also make it a self sufficient system.
3) As much as I am not a fan of nuclear proliferation especially in Iran and North Korea's case I have to point out that India, Pakistan and Israel have them and their programs were all carried out in secret, Israels still is therefore I think it highly hypocritical to whine about Iranian ambitions.
So as much as a nuclear armed Iran wouldn't be a boost to a safer world I don't think it would make it any less safe either.
4) As for the bit about the current regime being unpopular well I don't know and I really don't care, if Iran wants change thats for the people of Iran to determine and carry out it is really of no consequence to me.
I am a huge fan of the old maxim that the people get the government they deserve.