I certainly believe that if Iran continues to pursue nuclear weapons, that military intervention is acceptable. Obviously, Iran has no love for the countries of the West and would love to have power over them. In order to protect the citizens of the United States and other Western countries, I feel that if Iran persists and will not back down on nuclear weapons that military action is justified.
Providing all other solutions have failed, Iran's nuclear capabilities should be destroyed. The U.S. went to war in Iraq with far less justification. Ahmadinejad is a zealot and a bigot; the Iranian state is America's sworn enemy. To sit by and watch them build nuclear weapons, which you know they would then pass on to their terrorist allies, is not just unconscionable, it's also amazingly naive and stupid.
The Iranian leadership has shown their intolerance towards Israel. Their hateful speech and call for the eradication of the Jews show that they are dangerous and we should not allow them to gain a nuclear weapon at any cost.
In general, the global powers should take every action necessary to avoid the development or advancement of nuclear weapons by any other countries. If it becomes necessary for global powers to aid the development of energy resources in these other countries, than that should be done. Although nuclear energy is a viable alternative to fossil fuels, better solutions need to be developed and made available to all countries. Military action would be justified to stop the development of nuclear energy in countries that refuse to allow continued inspections for compliance with non-nuclear weapon development.
My point of view on this may seem extreme, but I have troubled in a lot of countries, many of which face problems with their Muslim population. The U.S. and much of the world seems to believe that they are dealing with reasonable people when they deal with Iran. They do not understand the belief system which is the foundation of the ruling class in that country. Islam is not just a religion to them; it is a way of life. This means that the Iranians will do anything to carry out what they believe is the main dictates of their religion and what their Imans espouse. One of the main beliefs held by faithful Muslims is that God will not return and paradise will not occur until every person is a Muslim or dead. This means they will proceed against every country, one by one, until they have total control. There will be no freedom. There will be no free will. It is a deadly religion and the propaganda machines that state otherwise are either purposely misleading the world, or they are like ostriches sticking their heads in the sand and hoping the enemy will not see them.
The consequences of Iran gaining nuclear weapons would be disastrous. It would destabilize the Middle East by threatening Iran's neighbors such as Saudi Arabia, creating a nuclear arms race in the middle of the world's most vital energy-producing region. Given the historic volatility of the Middle East, the inevitable consequence of that would be horrific for the world. It would therefore not only be justified, but necessary, as a last resort, for the global community to come together behind a military response that would prevent the unthinkable in the Middle East.
There is evidence of Iran's government harboring terrorists. If they support the terrorist agenda and have nuclear power on hand, it serves as a significant threat to world security, and must be acted upon. Diplomacy comes first, of course. But, blindly hoping they do the right thing is not an option.
I believe a military solution to a nuclear Iran is justified because of Iran's refusal to act on terrorist training and activities that take place within their country. The Iranian president, Ahmadinejad, pronounces that a Jewish state should not exist and can not be recognized. These blatant anti-Semitic sentiments are yet another reason why Iran cannot be trusted with nuclear weapons.
Ahmadinejad of Iran has stood on the United Nations floor and called for the eradication of Israel. Never before has the head of one nation openly advocated for the destruction of another member nation. If Iran had nukes, what is to keep them from actually following through on what they have threatened to do? Does their invasion of Iraq in the 1980s and use of biological and chemicals at that time decrease their risk of using nukes when they have it? Other nations build nuclear reactors to achieve energy efficiency. Iran does it to be able to kill its neighbors. Bombing a nuclear reactor for the creation of weapons of mass destruction is ethical, since it saves millions of lives.
Wars happen for many reasons, and military involvement is always a point of debate. However, given the danger posed by nuclear weapons, particularly those that are in the hands of the wrong country, if there is anything worth fighting for, it would be the safety of the world from foreign attack.
A nuclear Iran is dangerous because a nuclear weapon is powerful enough to destroy a country. Iran has not used any nuclear weapons but they have a nuclear station. As everyone knows, nuclear weapons are dangerous, and it's enough to justify a military solutions.
USA has ruined Dafur, Afganistan, Iraq (two times) and Vietnam within countless unreasonable arguments. Which of these countries has borders with USA? None! Iran has no case not even a single one. I do not believe but I certainly know that Iran is about to obtain a double head nuclear device at the end of 2013. The real threat is USA being promised to enhance the lethality of its nukes with a budget exceeding 80 billion dollar by Obama. I am not Iranian but I am scientifically supporting the existing project. Your only argument is our cultural differences and that's what you believe as danger.I support nuclear weaponization of Iran with action.
Even a nuclear Iran is only a threat to its region. The means to reach even neighboring regions is still outside of their current capabilities. The expense to allow them to develop weapons range that is capable of hitting even Europe would be rather high and not very productive for their economy. The only nation truly threatened by a nuclear Iran is Israel. Even then, the use of nuclear weapons is considered such a horrible thing in today's society that use of them against Israel would effectively be suicide for the nation of Iran.
Contrary to the Bush doctrine of first-strike deterrence, I do not accept that Iran's, or any other country's, nuclear capability, unacceptable though it may be, is sufficient to justify force. That force would be redirected, in turn, upon the United States. And, if the U.S. provoked a nuclear war, it would be disastrous.
It is my belief that nuclear war from any country is unlikely now or in the foreseeable future. Those countries with the technology and means to use it will continue to be deterred from using it due to threat of retaliation. Those countries, like Iran, who have the technology but not the ability to implement nuclear war do not pose any real threat.
To impose sanctions or Iran or threaten them with military action is wrong and unjust. The U.S. occupied Iraq for 8 years, and as a result of this, 500,000 innocent iraqis were killed. Why is it ok for us to do that and carry on with nuclear weapons, but it's wrong for Iran to have them? They are a sovereign country just like we are and they are entitled to them. We need to mind our own business and fix our problems in this country instead of trying to police the world.
In the current geopolitical constellation, we see an interesting and complex dynamic of strategic interests and formation of different alliances resulting in a shift in the balance of power unfavorable to the West. Even if Iran would acquire nuclear weapons, they would never use it since it would mean its own destruction, unless they would be pushed too far by nations which ironically have a bad habit and narcistic attitude of violating other nations sovereign rights for their own interests. The potential aquisition of a nuclear weapon is simply a deterrent aimed at hostile foreign policy with disregard for sovereign integrity pursued by Western nations. Basically Iran is saying "Back off and get out of our backyard, respect our sovereign right to conduct our own business and mind your own and there Will be nothing to worry about"
Becoming a nuclear power means a country is no longer a playball at the hands of foreign policy aimed at securing selfish interests.
Iran does need to be closely monitored, because of their history of terrorist activity. However, the nuclear risk is posed more by North Korea, than it is by Iran. North Korea has made countless threats against the United States stating that they can and will use nuclear weapons. Test runs of their weapons have already happened.
Contrary to what many pro-war militants stated, there is no evidence that Iran and the Muslim countries have a hatred located deep in their blood cells against the us and western themocracies. There is no historic evidence that the Arab states will destroy the whole Christianity. This has nothing to do with nuclear weapons but with the significant oil reserves that Iran possesses. There is a high probability that Iran's nuclear program is used exclusively for peaceful purposes and the US and Israel did not have a reason to try to stun Iran into submission. I sincerely believe that if no military action will be undergone against Iran and if the sanctions are lifted nothing will happen and the Middle East will live in peace.
While a nuclear Iran, as far as nuclear weaponry is totally unacceptable, a nuclear Iran as far as nuclear power plants is another story. That being said, there is no justification for going in militarily. This would further escalate our involvement in the affairs of Middle Eastern countries and we have got to find a way to get ourselves out of there, not get ourselves into another war. The cost would be far too great. This has to be dealt with diplomatically, with bargaining power and/or sanctions along with cooperation in these things from other countries.
The same countries that wield nuclear power are prohibiting a sovereign nation, which has yet to invade another nation, from obtaining nuclear power for themselves. To this date, the country appears financially incapable of keeping up with the upkeep of such a threatening weapon. Egotistical leaders of the nation are placed as the threat, yet many of the people want to be simply left alone to develop for themselves.