Ok, a preface before I start this: I'm answering this question on the assumption that I'm solving the world's problems single-handedly - that is, Thommy H for Emperor of Earth. If I was trying to bring the entire planet to heel, this is how I'd handle these particular nations:

United States: Bomb 'em. Americans won't understand anything but force and their strong fundamentalist Christian streak is not going to be impressed by my inclusive theology that will be the basis for my fledgling empire. Invasion is the only option.

China: I think the same goes for China, really. I think I have more chance of winning over the Chinese that I do the Americans in philosophical terms, but the fact that I'm a westerner is going to be a problem. No one wants to be ruled by someone of a different colour... Bomb 'em.

Iran: This depends whether I take out America first or not. Bomb 'em or debate 'em, I think.

Iraq: By the time of my rise to power, I expect Iraq to be a quagmire of religious factions battling over the scant resources that remain in their ruined cities. Leave 'em...30 years from now it won't be worth ruling...

Israel/Palestine: I'll be smashing some heads together here. Debate 'em - both at the same time. If nessecary, I'll force them to unite against the common enemy of my Empire. Teach everyone a lesson.

Zimbabwe: Haha...fuck Mugabe. That cunt is turning his country into a mediaeval theocracy so he can keep hold of power. I'll bomb him and then his people should be happy to join my prosperous new world order.

North Korea: See America.

Congo: See Iraq.

That's what I mean - it depends what I do to America. If I've bombed America first they might be willing to listen to me, if not I'll have to resort to violence.

I don't want to bomb anyone (ok, maybe Mugabe) but America is too big and diverse to win over with words alone. I'd be forced to invade, where I might stand a chance of resolving things in Iran without resorting to that.

is an interesting read on the issue. Not saying I agree or disagree with it; just that it raises some interesting points, and takes a view that isn't getting any notice.

Also, as much "dithering" as there might be right now, this is an issue that should have been examined years ago, but also one that doesn't need an immediate and hasty response, as Iran is at least 10 years away from developing any sort of nuclear weapon (despite that the talking heads have gone from 10 years to 5 years to NOW!).