Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz) discussed the need for the U.S. and Europe to create a common approach to Iran's nuclear program.
I’m not saying that military force is necessary at this moment; indeed, military action is always the last option we should consider, and moving toward sanctions will help forestall the need for greater coercion. But to preemptively forswear options is to weaken our diplomatic hand. In the end, there is only one thing worse than military action, and that is a nuclear armed Iran. By standing united on this issue, we can block Iran’s efforts to split the great powers and increase the chances of a peaceful resolution.

And as in so many other issues, the U.S. and Europe must define their policy not just by what we stand against, but also by what we stand for.

McCain also compared the Iranian nuclear situation to the events that resulted in World War II.  
Perhaps foremost on the minds of leaders today is Iran. I believe we are all aware of the danger posed by a nuclear armed regime in Tehran. Iran is a longtime sponsor of international terror. An Iran emboldened by a nuclear arsenal and the missile systems to deliver weapons would feel unconstrained to sponsor even more deadly terrorist attacks. Its calls for death to America and the extinction of Israel illustrate where its enemies list begins, but surely not where it ends. The nuclear danger reaches beyond the possibility of terrorism; Iran’s moves could induce Turkey, Egypt, Israel, Saudi Arabia and others to reassess their defense posture and arsenals. Iran already possesses ballistic missiles capable of reaching major European capitals and, though many would rely on classic deterrence to insure against Iranian thoughts of attack, its President’s messianic impulses are cause for grave worry. Europe’s history teaches painful lessons: In the 1930s too few took at face value a dictator’s threats to destroy peoples and countries, and the world paid a terrible price.