what should america do about iran's nuclear ambitions?

Question

i favor a pre-emptive strike. we cannot afford to let iran get nuclear weapons as once they do, we are toast.

Answer 1

According to the liberals, we should wait until the nuke someone, probably us and then blame Bush for causing it so he could have an excuse to go to war with them. (If only they used their brains for good instead of evil.)

Answer 2

America should work through the UN to deter Iran's nuclear ambitions. Diplomacy should be exhausted, followed by UN sanctions if Iran does not comply. Then a resurge in Diplomacy again. At some point in the past, the America was on good-terms with Iran. Going after Iran with a pre-emptive strike would cause an accelerated Global Nuclear Arms Race. Countries already seeking or re-seeking nuclear arms such as Algeria, Syria, Nigeria, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and least not forget North Korea would look to expedite their plans. America's interest in the middle east not for all the noble reasons George W. Bush and his croonies claim. It is for one main reason. OIL!

Answer 3

A pre-emptive strike, besides killing a bunch of innocent people, will not solve this problem unless nuclear weapons are used. Any nuclear weapons production facilities that Iran may have (The CIA has acknowledged that Iran has had an uranium enrichment program for energy purposes but is at least 10 years away from a simple atomic bomb) would undoubtdedly be protected from a conventional weapons attack. A nuclear pre-emptive strike on Iran whether by the USA or Israel or a combination of the two, while being successful at ending Iran's nuclear ambitions, would have the ancillary problem of bringing in Russia and China against us because they receive large amounts of oil from Iran and they would most likely consider such an attack as an act of war against them. As for Iran bombing us and turning us into "toast" this is in no way going to happen even if they had nuclear weapons because it would be suicide for them. As for Ahmadinejad's statement about driving Israel into the sea the western news media has blatantly misinterpreted his staement in which, when properly tranlated, he talks about regime change in the government of Israel for the purpose of extending citizenship to Israeli Arabs and not the destruction of the state of Israel. The quote about "driving Israelis into the sea" can be correctly attributed to Yassir Arafat. The best scenario in my view is better relations with Iran which will have the benefit of allowing weapons inspectors back into Iran (who, coincidently, found no weapons or weapons programs before they were barred from the country due to unfounded US accusations) who will be able to keep tabs on any nuclear weapons programs instead of the current situation where all we can do is guess.

Answer 4

Let me give you the pre-emptive strike aftermath, since you obviously cannot see further than your nose (just like the Shrub):

1. US attacks Iran
2. Iran retaliates, effectively making Iraq a hellhole for the US.
3. The US gets Israel to help out.
4. Iran gets Russia and China to help out.
5. Nuclear Holocaust. You and I can kiss our a.s.s.e.s goodbye!!!
6. World War 4 will be fought with sticks and stones, if any humans survive bullet point number 5 mentioned above.

Here is the solution to your question: open commercial and diplomatic ties with Iran. Believe me: befriending your enemy is the surest way of neutralizing him. Appeasement solves many problems. And then, there is no solid proof Iran is developing a bomb and even if they wanted one, they probably already have it, courtesy of North Korea! What Iran really wants is to sell the maximum amount of oil without importing any (YES: THEY IMPORT OIL, SINCE THEY CANNOT REFINE IT THEMSELVES). To do that, they need an alternate source of energy, which explains why Iran is the second largest dam-building country behind China. The population has exploded after the Iran-Iraq war and is continuing to rise. Therefore, in order to satisfy demand in a cheap way and sell expensive oil to essentially pocket themselves, the Mullahs want to develop nuclear energy. However, I also think they want to be nuclear-capable as opposed to nuclear-armed. They most certainly want to have the ability to build a bomb on short notice to deter against attacks (especially from the US), but they will probably fall just short of actually assembling one.

The President of Iran, first of all, has no real power. All the power resides in the hands of the Supreme Leader who is essentially a King with absolute power. Second of all, the President would never dream of "wiping Israel off the map", since that would mean killing off the Palestinians living in Israel who he adores so much. Furthermore, the radioactive fall would effectively kill him off and most of the Middle East. Third: if Iran ever attacked Israel or provided the means to do so to anyone, Iran would be incinerated by Israel and/or the US. Last, but not least, such a devout Muslim like Ahmadinejad, would never destroy his holy little mosque in Jerusalem, the second holiest (or hollowest) site in Islam. All that "wipe out" business is US and Israeli propaganda.

Answer 5

Why not, you guys let N. Korea have WMDs and they are in the testing phase and a hell of allot closer then Iran. Iran is still say they just want power plants. Maybe if Bush sat down with them but Bush don`t do that and maybe strike a deal with Pakistan to sell nuke power to Iran and build power lines.

Answer 6

Once there is another president in office there can be a different tone of talks with the Middle East, having a Bush in office does not make for easy negotiations. The same thing happened with the hostage crisis in the 70's and the Iranians waited for the changing of the guard in the US to release them. Probably the Iranians will calm down with an Al Gore or Hillary type in office.

Answer 7

Unfortunately we've used all our cards in the wrong game. Since we've whittled away at our military resources, credibility, power position, and "coalitions" in the current pre-emptive strike, we don't have much of a choice. This time the world will have to back the US in any decision or direction it takes. The "go at it alone-too bad if you don't agree, we're gonna do it anyway" attitude has isolated us, made us weaker and more of a target than ever.

Answer 8

you're able to desire to have been born after 1979. that could be a short record of why the Iranians are dickheads: •They killed the Shah of Iran and enable barbaric Islamic fundamentalists run the country • They abducted and held individuals for 444 days • at present they funnel intense tech bombs to kill OUR troops in Iraq • They threaten to wipe Israel and the U. S. off the map and thumb their nostril at something of the worldwide The Islamic doctrine particularly helps them to misinform Infidels to offer them an benefit and render any peace contract null after 10 years. be attentive to your enemy and bone up on Islam, you may nicely be shocked what you study. Edit: Kojak, you're appropriate, i develop into questioning of Anwar Sadat.

Answer 9

I really dont think the U.S. will have to do anything.Israel will end up doing it.This has happened before in the early 80s.They were working on a Nuke plant in Iran and Israel bombed it.

Answer 10

They'll use them on Israel first. This is no secret, as they've stated it perfectly clear. Once, what they feel is their arch-enemy, is gone they will indeed turn to us next.

I agree on the strike. This is something that won't go away by throwing money at it or taking money away. They are as serious as the sun rising in the east. We, as in the whole world, need to do something.

Answer 11

Attack. Iran has left us no choice. Do they really think we're just going to sit here and let them became a WMD department store for whatever terrorist group wants them? The same thing goes for North Korea!