I just watched Jon Stewart on O'Reilly. There's an unedited version here in mp4 format. That's the on I saw.
It's an interesting interview. One question that O'Reilly raised concerned Iran. He wants to know Stewart's thoughts. Is he scared of Iran? Should we consider violence against them to curb their nuclear capacity?
Stewart's reply is basically there are a lot of scary places in the world and we don't have the resources to go in and stop them forcefully. O'Reilly seemed to agree.
My view is a little different. I definitely don't want to see Iran with nuclear weapons. Iran is comprised of people that are amongst the most extreme of Islamic fundamentalists. No sane person wants nuclear weapons in the hands of such people. On the other hand there are immediate things that can be done to reduce the likelihood that they will acquire weapons.
Take a look at this map of the Middle East and note which countries are on Iran's borders. Among them are Iraq, where the U.S. has removed the previous government and installed a client regime, and in the process killed probably hundreds of thousands of people at a minimum. Then there's Afghanistan where the U.S. has removed the previous government and installed a client regime, and further wrecked an already wrecked country. Also there is Pakistan which had been ruled by a U.S. backed military dictator since 1999. Since then there have been "elections." Without going in to the details I'll just say that it's another puppet regime. Despite this Obama has expanded U.S. aggression in Pakistan.
So what would you expect a regime like what is in Iran to do if they want to sustain their grip on power when they are frequently being threatened by a state that has conquered many of the nations at it's borders? If they are sane they will probably attempt to acquire as many powerful weapons as they can. Our violence on their borders would quite naturally be their primary motivation to acquire these dangerous weapons.
O'Reilly is concerned about Iran. I am too. But Iran hasn't committed an act of aggression against another state in hundreds of years, unlike the United States and Israel. Lost among O'Reilly's spin is the fact that recently the IAEA passed a resolution calling on Israel to join the IAEA and open up it's nuclear weapons facilities to safety inspections for stability in the Middle East. Iran is a member. Iran has opened up it's nuclear sites to IAEA inspectors. Israel refuses. If it makes sense to threaten Iran, which doesn't have the aggressive history, why doesn't it make sense to threaten Israel, which does have an extremely aggressive history and in fact today occupies foreign territory by force?