That's wrong. We do know that they had been trying to develop nuclear weapons for years. The first reactor was bought from France in the 70s and the Israelis bombed Iraq a few times to stop them from developing nuclear weapons. The same will happen with Iran if they do not stop enriching uranium above energy-related levels. Back to Iraq, there was evidence that was presented to Congress, and if you ask most of the people who voted to authorize the war based on the evidence, such as Hillary or John Kerry, they say they have no regrets in voting that way (i.e. http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/21/iraq.hillary/). Now, in hindsight, whether all that evidence was correct is an entirely different debate.

If you explain to me why Iran can not have nuclear weapons while USA and Israel (and France and the UK and Russia and Korea and China) can I'll give it a second thought.

My personal view is that the USA was interested in the oil sitting there. End of story. Same thing with Ghadafi. The rest is politics to justify a war that doesn't make any sense.

Indeed the Iraq war was Blair's political destruction in the UK. Why do you think no one wants to attack Syria? Out of lack of evidence ? At that level you don't need evidence, you create them...

Your personal view is wrong, and, even worse, not very smart. It does not make any sense to spend this much money on getting Iranian oil - it could be just bought much cheaper (if all sanctions and impediments were removed), and US has plenty of oil that is not being developed anyway.

>>> Why do you think no one wants to attack Syria?

Because attack presumes you need to achieve something. There's nothing in Syria that can be achieved right now that would be a desirable target. Assad is evil, islamic fundamentalists that battle him are evil too, US has no power and no political will to reform Syria and make anything good out of that mess. Neither does anybody else. That's why Assad is not being removed - because after removing him nobody knows how to clean up the mess.