Should the U.S. Use Military Force Against Iran?

Should the U.S. Use Military Force Against Iran?

Once a distant, mysterious land, the U.S. has become intensely embroiled in Middle Eastern politics. While simultaneously waging campaigns in both Afghanistan and Iraq, America has turned a wary eye to Iran and its alleged nuclear weapons. With the lives of potentially thousands of soldiers and citizens at stake in both countries, should the U.S. take direct military action against Iran?

Next question in War on Terror

  • “No”
  • “Objection”
  • “Objection”
Heritage Foundation

Nuclear Buildup Would Lead To Diplomatic Isolation

Heritage Foundation

Virtually every nation that has fielded nuclear weapons has done so to counter a perceived threat. Iran apparently wants to be the exception. Arming itself with nukes isn't merely unnecessary -- it could do irreparable harm to its international standing and strategic security.

From a strategic point of view, a nuclear Iran makes no sense. It would make the country a pariah in the West and a target of fear and suspicion by every Middle Eastern power.

Iran is arguably much safer than it was a decade ago. The Soviet bear has been de-clawed. Russia's military poses no threat. The Taliban is gone, and a friendly warlord sits on the Afghan-Iranian border. Saddam Hussein, who once led an invasion of Iran, has been deposed. Turkey certainly isn’t interested in attacking. Even Israel may make peace with the Palestinian Authority, leaving Iran scant justification for portraying that conflict as a causus belli.
 
Ironically, all these developments can in great part be attributed to the policies of the United States -- which, it can be argued, has done more to make the world safe for Iran than all the mullahs in Tehran.

Iranians might argue that they have to defend themselves against the United States. After all, the president did list their country as part of an axis of evil. But Iran is on the list only because it has backed terrorists and pursued weapons of mass destruction. A nuclear weapons program, which is more likely to gain Washington's ire than its indifference, doesn't seem like a good idea for a country that wants to enhance its security.
 
A nuclear program would be logical only if Iran wants a stick that it can use to bully neighbors and raise its standing in the Islamic world. But wait -- Pakistan tried that route. All it managed to achieve was a nuclear standoff that threatens to kill millions of people if somebody makes a mistake or gets an itchy trigger finger.
 
Even if Iran builds a nuclear capability, it can rest assured that, like North Korea, it will get more attention from the United States than it wants. It also will risk isolating itself diplomatically and economically from the nations that can help meet the aspirations of young Iranians who wish to see their country grow and prosper.

Post a Comment

Next Argument Previous Next

U.S. Military in Iran?

Loading
  • Yes
  • No
Vote
View Results

Ask Your Friends to Vote

Spotlight

Loading
  • David Bukay
    David Bukay (Ph.D.), teaches at the School of Political Science in the University of Haifa. His main fields are: International Terrorism and Islamic fanaticism;... More

Subscribe to Opposing News

Biweekly updates on new debates and experts

Loading
Thank you for signing up

Please check your email to confirm your subscription.