LW - hence my point re "international law" and "puff of logic". There is (as we are all aware) an entire supra-national industry/lobby group dedicated to the promotion / enforcement of international law.
Remarkably, many of the most vociferous proponents of "international law" tend to view it as a stick with which to restrain the actions of "the West" or the RSPs (Israel). They tend to be somewhat less vociferous and more equivocal when the "law-breaker" is a nation like Uncle Kims socialist paradise, Cuba, Venezuela (currently), China or Iran.
Personally, I'm all for acting for national interest, caveatted with pragmatism and avoidance of being an arsehole for the sake of it! In other words, abide by the spirit of the UN, but don't ignore an obvious "threat" because it's convenient not to. I'm afraid that I read I'maDinnerJacket and his theocratic mates as a bunch of chancers whose interests are largely opposed to those of the UK and who will be more irrational, rather than less, if they get a bucket of instant sunshine of their very own to play with.
That means that it is in the interests of the UK for an Iranian bomb to be prevented, preferably with the minimum effect necessary.