Iran: What to Do?
Fresh on heels of President Obama’s first official meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the Iranian government recently announced that it test-fired a missile with a 1,200 mile range. According to the New York Times, this missile is “within striking distance of Israel and of American bases in the Persian Gulf. Though the Iranian leader did not allude to any specific target beyond Iran’s borders in the news agency account.”
We’ve also been asking about Iran in our surveys, most recently in our Top Question Tuesday survey consisting of user-submitted questions. Our question asked, “Some people believe Iran is developing nuclear weapons. Both the Bush and Obama administrations have said that an Iranian nuclear capability is unacceptable. Would you support or oppose a US attack on Iran to stop an Iranian nuclear weapon program after diplomacy had run its course, even if it meant a wider war in the Middle East?”.
Overall, 57% of those surveyed either strongly supported or somewhat supported a US attack, while 36% either somewhat opposed or strongly opposed an attack and 7% were not sure. 87% of Republicans strongly or somewhat supported an attack , compared to 47% of Democrats . Likewise, 87% of conservatives strongly or somewhat supported an attack, compared to 44% of moderates and 25% of liberals. Younger people were also less likely to strongly or somewhat support an attack than older people - 47% of those 18-29 felt this way, compared to 59% of those 30-49, 59% of those 50-64, and 62% of those over 65.
What (if anything) do you think is most likely to happen between the US and Iran? And would you support or oppose a US attack on Iran to stop development of Iran’s nuclear weapons, if diplomacy was no longer an option?
Loading ...
Any attack on Iran has to be strictly bound to their violation of treaties. We have seen the costs of waging war after interpreting justifications more loosely.
That said, the attack would represent a conflict we cannot win. Destroying a research complex would be more than offset by the long-term effects of exciting strong Iranian nationalism.
Iranians may be religious but they are not stupid. If they wind up with nuclear arms, they will not destroy Israel. Their sabre-rattling is designed for their own audiences. An actual attack would cost them too much. A nuclear war is bad for everyone involved, and anyone with more education than the typical backwoods Taliban understands that.
The technological genie is out of the bottle. Humanity’s best bet is for us to exert pressures by various means — be they small proxy wars, or use of our most powerful tool, the concept of freedom — and drive populations towards responsible and pluralistic governments and not into the arms of dictators.
Iran may or may not be sabre-rattling, but one thing is certain: Israel will defend itself if it perceives a state hostile to it is nearing a nuclear capability. That defense would include a pre-emptive strike just as they did against Iraq back in 1981.
It is also important to remember that Iran may not overtly use a nuclear weapon against Israel, but could easily pass a weapon along to terrorist groups to accomplish the same goals.
For the moment, STRONG diplomacy is called for; but if diplomacy wasn’t working and it was clear that an Iranian nuclear bomb was about to become reality — a U.S. strike would be in order.
What happens between Iran and the US seems to be dependent on whether or not Israel attacks Iran. If Israel cannot be constrained, then we will be fighting a Third World War.
In the meantime, until we can extract ourselves from Iraq and Afghanistan, attacking Iran for any reason, other than that we have follow the lead of Israel if they start a war with Iran, will be disastrous for the US and the rest of the world.
Our diplomacy should be on the threat from Pakistan as well as Israel and the possibility that their nuclear bombs will be used by extremists in either country.
Under international law, Iran has the right to develop peaceful uses of nuclear power. Whereas we sanctioned Pakistan until recently for the development of nuclear weapons, we have never sanctioned Israel. Could all the countries in the Middle East have been given the okay to develop nuclear weapons as a result of a one-sided policy?
Iranian nuclear weapons are a big hype.They said they just want to produce their own nuke power and nuclear weapons are unislamic.
Nuclear weapons have no offensive value at best they can surve as a deterrent.
The Iranians are not suicidal but an attack on them would be the greatest counterproductive idiocy any government can unleash on itself.
President Obama’s diplomacy will bear fruit and hopefully we can stop
the warmongers in their track
@AFBlue
Under no circumstannces should the US engage in a preemptive strike.That lesson should have been learned in Iraq.
Not only would such an attack unleash the worst kind or retaliation
but give plenty of justification to the Iranians to this time really
go after nuclear weapons in a big way.
If we can give Iran credible assurance that they are safe from an attack from us; we are not plotting a regime change, they will have no reason to proceed with the weapon production.
I believe President Obamas outreach to the Iranians will achieve such an outcome.
War is not an option.
Don’t worry about the mid East. Scull& Bones have a plans long term plan. Those who have long term vision can “see” it clear as day.
The pieces will fall, where they will.