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?
University of Haifa
The only case the Heritage Foundation is right is its objection to attacking Iran's nuclear sites and/or invading Iran. It is really useless. However, since Iran endangers the whole region politically and threatens to damage world political stability religiously, the US must topple down this evil regime. Think of Nazi Germany. Did it stopped after taking its Hinterland? If Iran is not stopped, the prospects are chaos and all against all wars in the Middle East.
History has proven time and again that religion and ideology are dangerous, and in many cases they are deterred only by power. The prices of doing so tomorrow are much higher than today. The aim is not military invasion, but outside surprise attack meant to eliminate its political (which is religious) elite and institutions (a must) and destroying its military command and communication. Out of the political vacuum, the Iranian opposition should be assisted, politically, logistically and economically to seize power. Is it difficult and risky? Very much. Is it possible? It is. Can we be assured? No, but we have no choice but to act. Even if not, we must understand that all other alternatives are futile.
Next Argument
Biweekly updates on new debates and experts
Please check your email to confirm your subscription.
© 2008 Opposing Views, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Opposing Views, Inc. is not responsible for the content posted on this website. Please view full disclaimer under Terms
Expert Verified
