If diplomacy and economic sanctions fail to end Iran's nuclear program should the United States wage war on the country?

  • If diplomacy and economic sanctions fail to end Iran's nuclear program, then the United States should wage war on the country, because they would be a threat to all civilized nations.

    If diplomacy and economic sanctions fail to end Iran's nuclear program, then the United States should wage war on Iran, because it is a threat to all civilized nations and the United States in particular. The President of Iran has clearly and repeatedly stated that Israel should be wiped off the face of the Earth. If Iran is allowed to develop nuclear weapons, there is no doubt that Iran will use those weapons.

    Posted by: JamieM
  • United States should go for war if there is no result after diplomacy and economic sanctions.

    Yes I strongly believe that if there is no result after a diplomatic effort and economic sanctions do not hurt Iran then the United States must execute the option of war.

    Although I believe the United States should not start war against Iran until we've explored all other options, Iran has continuously violated United Nations resolutions and continues to work on weapons of Mass destruction. We want to live in this world and there is no point if one country is violating laws of the world and we don't take action against them.

    Posted by: Pur3Rodd
  • No more war!!

    I'm tired of our government spending billions on war when our country is in a financial crisis that we can't get out of. We should focus on improving the lives of our citizens with better education and health care. We should focus on our science programs and help people with cancer and diabetes not build weapons and fight another war. We should learn from our mistakes like Vietnam. All the money and lives were wasted and nothing came out of that conflict. Those men died for a political war. What a waste of life and resources. I don't want that happening again in Iran.

  • No, the American military is overextended, and Iran would be a real fight, rather than an asymmetrical one.

    The American military is currently overextended, fighting three wars in Afghanistan, Libya, and Iraq. The economy is also hurting, with money tight for spending at home, and the government running a deficit. The country cannot afford another war. Furthermore, while the United States has a decisive advantage in power against those it is currently at war with and still often finds itself in a stalemate, Iran has a much more powerful military. It's not as strong as the United States, but it is capable of putting up an actual military fight. War with Iran would be disastrous and costly. Meanwhile, their development of nuclear weapons is a rational move on their part. Countries with nuclear weapons are respected by other countries, while deterrence prevents any actual offensive use of nuclear weapons. Iran rightfully perceives that the possession of nuclear weapons would increase the respect accorded the country.

    Posted by: tacomoon
  • NO, starting war with Iran would further divide the world.

    Iran is allies with Russia, which is allies with Venezuela. Russia could persuade Venezuela to stop exporting oil to the U.S. This would then in turn damage South American relations. This would have a global affect on the U.S and not in a positive light. This would be bad considering the reputation the United States has already gained for itself this century. It's not exactly fair to tell Iran they cannot possess nuclear technology, when the U.S were the first to gain it and use it as a weapon. As a matter of fact, the United States was the only nation whom used nuclear weapons in an attack on another country. It's a bit hypocritical, don't you think? An ideal world is one where every nation has nuclear weapons. This would guarantee peace, because an attack on one country means the annihilation of both.

    Posted by: RayEar
  • Iran has every right to have nuclear weapons and it is hypocritical on other countries to sanction Iran, let alone threaten with war.

    Iran is a sovereign country. If the idea of having nuclear weapons is to deter war, then why should any country not acquire this weapon? Iran is in a region where it is surrounded by nuclear-armed countries (Russia, Israel and Pakistan). Their desire to be well-armed is reasonable, so they can be on equal footing with their neighbors. They are not prevented by any international treaty with these countries to develop a nuclear weapon.

    Posted by: takakidaily
  • We should not wage war on Iran without fully exercising all other options.

    I think war should be a final option instead of something that is just jumped into so casually. I think that even if diplomatic sanctions don't work that perhaps by banding together with some of their nearby neighboring countries that we can work something out, and if not end the nuclear program at least keep it controlled and in check.

    Posted by: SamDude
  • The country cannot afford another war in the Middle East.

    While nuclear weapons in the hands of a country like Iran is undoubtedly a dangerous thing for America and the rest of its global allies, contemporary wartime progress in that area of the world has shown that it would be almost impossible to win. UN sanctions are a far better alternative, if carried out forcefully.

    Posted by: PhiDoom
  • I totally disagree that the United States should wage war if diplomacy and economic sanctions fail to end Iran's nuclear program.

    The Iran's nuclear program is now in front of the world, but they are continuously saying that it is just for the resources of energy. US has already done a big mistake by attacking Iraq and now if it attacks Iran there will be a great instability in that part of the Asian continent and may even lead to a world war.

    Posted by: bangabad
  • Absolutely not, our military cannot withstand another war.

    If we can't find a way to put restrictions on Iran, there has to be another method to make them give up the nuclear program they're trying to build. Our military has been stretched to the breaking point thanks to the seemingly unwinnable wars we are in already. A military confrontation with Iran would have devastating consequences on the troops in our Armed Forces. A war with Iran could even see the use of nuclear weapons of some kind, and that would cause more harm than we can imagine here.

    Posted by: PinkMych
  • No, I do not think that US should wage war on Iran.

    No, war is not a solution to any problem. If it had been, then India and Pakistan would have undergone a full-fledged war and could have sorted out their issues once and for all. War leaves the innocent civilians hurt, homeless and deprived of even the basic human rights. It causes destruction and losses which cannot be covered even in two decades to come. Moreover, having a war with a country who has nuclear powers can be dangerous not only for these two countries but for mankind.

    Posted by: 54vi0rTanny
  • I do not think that we should go to war with Iran, because the U.S. needs to get out of the Middle East altogether.

    If diplomacy and economic sanctions fail to end Iran's nuclear program, I do not think that the U.S. should go to war with them. I think that the U.S. needs to butt out of the Middle East altogether. We need to decrease any dependence that we have on that area, and let them fight their own battles.

    Posted by: GilGrabs

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.