Um... And Then What?

Gotta love unsigned editorials, this one from the Times. After telling us, "the government in Tehran has clearly concluded that it has little to fear for now from an American government whose diplomatic credibility has been damaged and whose military capacities have been stretched by the war in Iraq", the editorial concludes,

For want of a better alternative, Europe is right to give Iran a little more time to change its mind. But the world cannot afford to wait long. Once the new centrifuges are completed, Iran's ambitions will become much harder to contain. If no agreement is reached soon, this apparent drive to build nuclear weapons should be recognized as a threat to international peace and security and taken up by the United Nations Security Council later this year.

Let's see.... Unlike Iraq, Iran has a real military, and while we are trying to prevent its acquisition of the "A" (atomic) in what were formerly known as "ABC Weapons", it apparently already has the "B" (biological) and "C" (chemical). It is quite likely that the post-war occupation of Iran would be substantially more difficult than that of Iraq. So this goes to the Security Council with the Times' premise that the U.S. and Britain are too bogged down to Act, and Europe (which probably couldn't even effect the necessary troop transport and military transport without U.S. help, even if it could muster a couple hundred thousand troops to invade) will... do what, exactly?