There are many different options that could be used in dealing with Iran's nuclear programs.. Which one do you feel America should utilize?
Diplomatic solution - send the US Secretary of State over to the UK for a couple of weeks for diplomatic training.
Starting from the premises that a global superpower has to keep a certain level of control regarding diffusion of nuclear weaponry [just because they could be a real threat to the geopolitical interests of the mentioned superpower] ... US have to do something. What? Today this administration seems to trust the diplomatic way, while personally I don't exclude some military action if things get worse [and if at Teheran it becomes clear that the theocracy wins on any eventual birthing democracy in that country]. So I answer "other".
I will always prefer diplomatic actions over military. Yet, I am torn in this between staying out of Middle Eastern nations completely and trying to deal with them at some level. The entire region is slow poison every time we touch it....every time we try to "Help", it comes back to bite us. They simply are not worth the headaches and do not want us involved in any way...the cultures are generally not ready to grow up yet.
Above all, it is essential that the US not surrender to any powerful foreign lobby; it must act in its own interests. It has been duped into monumentally disastrous militaristic gambits before, and is still paying an enormous price for the blunder, but some will never learn. If regional nuclear rivals that secretly achieved nuclear capability wish to prevent Iran from following their example, that is their affair.
I completley agree. It is a region we cant and wont ever understand. We simply dont get the tribal politics that rule the regions over there. We cannot begin to understand the thousands of years of anger grief and hatred involved. People have been trying to find ways to avoid the middle east since time remembered.
What I find curious is how many people whined about Obama seeking a diplomatic solution, and that Iran cant be trusted to abide by any agreement, but yet, only one person has voted for air strikes, only 1 person has voted other, and 0 people have voted to invade.
There is no possible diplomatic solution, because for there to be a diplomatic solution there must be trust. I voted 'Do nothing', but amend that to include maintaining or increasing sanctions, and continued support of our allies. Israel, and the others in the region are more than capable of dealing with whatever regional threats may arise w/r to Iran. In the meantime, we need to be doing everything possible to relieve ourselves and our allies of dependence upon M.E. oil so that our strategic interests in that volatile region are minimized.
Maximum sanctions to stop the financing of their expansionism and to support potential internal revolution against the government.
Nothing. Actually America would give nukes to every Middle Eastern country! Nukes for Saudi Arabia, nukes for Egypt, nukes for Syria! Why did USA and USSR never make a hot war? Because both had nukes! Nukes are weapon of mass peace!
Iran's nuclear weapons - this is just propaganda of American media. This is the same chemical weapons in Iraq (2003). Remember the tube with chalk at a meeting of the UN?