Wouldn't a preventive military action in Iran almost certainly fuel anti-Americanism, Iranian nationalism ??

Question

and very aggressive efforts to move toward the development of nuclear weapons program?

I may be wrong!

I can't be wrong.

It would be a BIGGER MESS.

Answer 1

That's (exactly) what the Bush doctrine is about.
A destabilized Mideast is very profitable for oil companies, it justifies extremely high prices at the pump.
What we have with the Bush regime is in fact a Corporation disguised as a political ideology.

Answer 2

The Iranian people actually love America. They would rather come here than fight us. It is the Iranian leaders who hate America. On 9/11 Iran and Israel were the only 2 countries who didn't celebrate in the Mid East.

Answer 3

It could do the first. But what difference would it make ? The anti-American sentiment is already there so more of it is of no concern. The whole thing of a preemptive strike on their nuclear facilities is the location. It is surrounded by civilian homes. If we let them develop nukes they will use them if we strike we must strike hard enough to destroy the facilities and be prepared for political backlash.

We are in a no win situation with the middle east so we either watch Israel nuked or we kill the scum and have done with it.

I am sorry if you are of middle eastern descent but those people are crazy and always have been.

Answer 4

There is already anti-americanism in Iran. You can't get much more anti-american than they are now. The only way to reduce anti-americanism is to give in to Iran's demands and allow them to do whatever they want. If we want them to become our allies, we would have to agree to become a muslim nation and help them to wipe out Israel. In terms of nuclear weapons, they are dead set on getting them. Nothing that we do would make them more or less aggresive. They have made up their minds that they want them, regardless of what we say or do.

Answer 5

It doesn't matter if they are "more aggressive" in their effort to develop nuclear weapons if they have a smoldering hole in the ground instead of a laboratory.

Answer 6

Its hard to say,,,I think,,depends on many factors beyond Americas control,,I think limited to their nuclear facility's ,,no,,,beyond that its a crapshoot...50/50 kind of deal...we really know very little about any of the good Iranians,,,we know about the Islamics & evil ways....chow supercutie,,,freepress

Answer 7

Perhaps - in the same sense that a strong downdraft fuels gravity.

Anti-Americanism and nationalism have been rampant in Iran since the revolution in '79, and it's not going to go away. Would bombing them make it worse? Yes - it's naked agression. Would not bombing them make it worse? Yes - it's showing weakness. Would sending Paris Hilton there as a good will ambassador make it worse? Yes - she's the handmaiden of Satan. Would having bacon with my breakfast tomorrow morning make it worse? I wouldn't be surprised. Maybe I'll have pancakes instead, just to be safe.

Answer 8

Scott Ritter spoke about this and said this would cause the end of american domination in the world and another superpower would emerge, maybe china.

Answer 9

well when a country has nukes all the sudden the world thinks they are rational. Look at the ex axis of evil north Korea. It was a crazy place before they got nukes then all the sudden everyones sitting around a table discussing things. I for one hope Iran gets the bomb. But realistically its a spendy proposition. I think thats one of the key factors in why S. Africa made the bomb and gave it up.

Answer 10

America is already hated enough. The current administration has failed in every avenue by not negotiating. We should leave this, with oversight, to the United Nations. We will still be here after the UN messes it up. Besides, why do we have to fight everyone elses wars? True, we have a whole lot to loose but I think the rest of the world needs to step up and take a swing at least once in a while.