Haven't we done this before?
The Bush administration wants to go to war, so they start building reasons, then when somebody checks those reasons they turn out to be rubbish, and then the administration "slams" the report and, well, ignores it.
Iraq, WMDs. Now Iran, nukes.
Doesn't it seem like there's a pattern emerging?
(BTW, just in case there's anyone reading who watches FOX, WMDs have not, ever, never, not in any way, been found in Iraq. This is why pro-war sites have been, for a while now, trying to justify the war without the reason it was started.)
And there's even a repeat of Ignoring All Other Solutions. The Russian proposal, that they would oversee and remove any and all nuclear waste from Iran's nuclear power station, was barely even discussed before it was rejected. And yet, it would negate the problem 100%. Without the waste, which can - using a very lengthy and expensive process - be made into weapons-grade material, Iran's alleged "nucular ambitions" would be entirely unadvanced. Still, like Putin's solutions to the Iraq issue, they'll be rejected because they address the stated reasons, not the real reasons.
The Bush administration rejected Putin's plans for a solution to Iraq and claimed they would "reject any solution which left Saddam in power".
Soooo..what was the war about, again?
UN1442 was the vehicle, not the destination.