Recently, video footage has surfaced of two gay Iranian men being publicly executed by hanging in Iran. Their crime was merely the fact that they were gay, and in Iran homosexuality is punishable by death. Also punishable by death is any dissidence to the policies of the dictatorial government. Scholars, political opponents, college students and "enemies of the state" routinely disappear or are outright executed.

Is this the type of government that should be allowed to possess weapons that can incinerate entire cities?

Clearly, the issue of stopping Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons is a goal of the United States. (This is clearly a bipartisan goal as both Democrats and Republicans in the Congress recently voted overwhelmingly to condemn Iran) But what specific foreign policy can be taken towards stopping this regime in its acquisition of atomic bombs?

Fred Thompson has proposed influencing the World Bank from funding Iran. In an article that appeared in the Washington Times, Thompson stated: American taxpayers' money shouldn't be used so that Tehran can divert its own money into a nuclear weapons program." Newt Gingrich has also echoed financial strangulation as a way of curtailing Iran's ambitions. In other parts of the world, more hostile rhetoric has been brought up. France, for example, has been quite liberally throwing the word "war" around in regards to dealing with Iran. (France has a nuclear submarine stationed in the Persian Gulf)

If Iran were to acquire nuclear weapons the entire face of the Middle East would change and the repercussions would have dramatic impact on the rest of the world. The nation would have the ability to threaten its neighbors and to deny oil to any country in the world that currently relies on Iranian imports. This would have dramatic impact on Europe and parts of Asia to a degree that most can not imagine and, certainly, neither the US, the European Union or other nations will allow it to happen.