Do you support a global sanction by UN on Iran to stop its nuclear activities or a stealth strike by the US?

Answer 1

thry're a big country, why can't they have nukes too, the threat of mutual deterence will prevent them from using it. But they need it to prevent the US from invading thier country and dropping bombs on them everytime you don't like something.

Answer 2

I support the sanctions on Iran in order to curtail Islamic revolution and terrorism. With free hand on nuclear weapons Iron may join other Islamic and like minded nations and do anything to threaten the entire world.

Here we should see the reasons for imposing these sanctions by UN and US, which are as under -

UN Sanctions Against Iran-

In 1979, at the time of the Islamic revolution and the hostage crisis, the United States imposed broad economic sanctions against Iran. Since then, Washington has imposed various additional sanctions against Tehran, accusing the Iranian government of developing nuclear weapons and sponsoring or funding terrorism abroad. The sanctions block US-based oil companies from operating in Iran, giving the US a strong incentive to generalize the sanctions and block US firms' foreign competitors from operating there as well.

In February 2003, Iran revealed its uranium enrichment program at Natanz, claiming it was using the technology for peaceful purposes and inviting the UN nuclear monitoring body, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), to visit. The US, however, alleged that the program is part of a drive to develop nuclear weapons. Washington sought to refer the Iranian case to the Security Council. But in November 2004, Tehran signed a temporary agreement with Germany, France and Britain to cease uranium enrichment and the IAEA issued Iran a clean bill of health, effectively avoiding Security Council intervention. However, the IAEA said it could not confirm that Iran is not pursuing undeclared nuclear activities, and some observers were quick to note that Iran broke a similar agreement with the Europeans in 2003. Even if Iran's case comes before the Security Council, China's energy interests in Iran coupled with its veto power would probably stand in the way of sanctions. -

Answer 3

I would support another UN economic sanction. One of the reasons is that Russia reported yesterday that Iran is currently delinquent on their payments for the construction of their nuclear power facilities in which Russian contractors helped them build. Iran is already feeling the affects of previous sanctions. More would put an additional squeeze on them, and I don't think Iran is prepared to fight another long-term war. They lost almost a million casualties in the '80's war with Iraq. Another war would bankrupt them regardless of their oil resources. Stealth strikes on Iran by the US without provocation would further endanger us to the spread of terrorist elements in the world, not make us safer or more secure, & more countries would turn against us as it is. Ahmadinejad may be an Islamic extremist, but he's not crazy enough to give the US any reasons to attack his country. UN sanctions are more effective and would gain more world support.

Answer 4

A nuclear armed Iran would be wholly unacceptable to Isreal. However, Isreal does not have the fuel range for it's fighters to strike Iran and return to Isreal. Therefor, for what it's worth to your question, the U.S. may not do the actual bombing, but rather provide refueling tankers for Isreali fighter/bombers.

Of course, any attack by Isreal will be a last resort, at least two years away, probably more. If we, or they, strike it won't be untill all diplomacy has been attempted, and Iran appears within months (a year at most) from becoming nuclear armed. That is at least three years off, and probably 5-7.

That said, I always prefer diplomacy if the same objectives can be accomplished. Iran recently has shown signs of limited cooperation, though speculation says it is doing so begrudgingly, and only after the U.S. recently made it clear, by Presidential directive, that the armed forces could attack Iranian forces in self-defense. Iran had ben under the misguided impression that the U.S. would refrain from military conflict, as it is "bogged down" in Iraq. This is, of course, a grave miscalculation on the part of Iran. The U.S. is "bogged down" by choice, and could dis-engage very quickly from Iraq if need be, albeit at the cost of thousands of Iraqi civilian lives in the resulting chaos.

Answer 5

Lets take this from a global perspective.

Any attack on Iran will be percieved as U.S. backed.
U.S. foreign policy is at an all time low right now.
When just about everyone is leaving IRAQ, we're going to be left alone with the aussies-all 2000 of them.

Our military is already rushing troops that arent fully trained, and even proper equipming is becoming an arguement.

Could we fight and win in Iran?

No!
Our military cannot, and since our reserve components are also stretched thin, that means attacks that would ultimately begin within america would call for erradic redeployment of our troops.
Which would affect our stance in Iraq and Afganistan, not to mention a 3rd front against Iran, and its allies

This will only strengthen the venezuelians, and the like to assemble against us and it would be an all out targeting of America from all sides, in state and abroad.

DIPLOMACY where america isnt forced with sole burden of cost and life is the only way to resolve this crisis. We collect ourself, maintain our position as a stregthful nation, and return to the global talks on peace and stability.
This will help stabalize ourselves, in our own eyes and for every country that aims to strike us when were at our weakest.

Answer 6

Bullies always lose in the end. Everything should be done to solve this issue properly, and Bush is not trying very hard as he won't even talk with Iran. If ever an airstrike was the only hope for mankind, and we are far from that, it should never be carried out by the United States. Have Nato do it with French or German planes. If the US does it, we will pay dearly for having done so.

Answer 7

None of the above...Iran shouldn't be told to give up something they have every right to...
Iran has signed the NNPT,so they are not doing anything illegal...they have every right to nuclear energy mas long as it is used in civilian purposes...and unless someone proves that they are building nukes ,then yes,there should be sanctions...until then no one should have the right to tell Iran how to handle their internal affairs...

Answer 8

Global sanctions. I would love seeing that Iranian maniac chowing down on a pair of army boots.

Answer 9

It's the same old WMD nonsense that they used to invade Iraq. Will we be taken in again? Certainly. The people aren't smart enough to prevent an obvious wrong.

Answer 10

Why shouldn't Iran have nuke? what's logic behind this. US should stop bullying other. Let first US and Israel destroy their nuke