posted on Nov, 15 2013 @ 06:53 PM
So with the recent international talks happening over Iran's nuclear development agenda one has to wonder at what point do we justify switching from
diplomacy to force? It seems like the recent discussions have not gotten anywhere especially considering the fact both Israel and Iran are not willing
to compromise over much:
It took just a few hours on Sunday for the focus of the failed negotiations on an Iranian nuclear deal to shift to the promise of a breakthrough
at the next meeting. Israel, however, is not sold on the pending deal.
It's been now what? 8 or so years that there have been diplomacy efforts to avoid any direct confrontation with Iran and it's seem to have gotten
worse than better. Israeli officials have already made it clear that they are willing to attack Iran alone if they have to, what about America's
leadership? Well they haven't exactly denied that force is off the table.
Obama has been clear about his position:
"I've said before and I will repeat -- we do not want Iran having nuclear weapons," Obama said when asked about Iran by Agence France-Presse's
And given his previous position on Syria and Israelis influencial lobbies in DC, it's not out of the question that he will allow for force.
What about the other major players in DC?
Cruz added, he also agrees "with John McCain that if Iran is on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons that we should intervene militarily to
prevent it from acquiring those weapons. Why? Because it is in the vital national security interest of the United States."
Military options must be left on the table to force Iran's leaders to abandon their nuclear ambitions, according to Jeb Bush. The US should be
much more assertive in encouraging regime change there as well, he said.
There is a pretty much solid consensus within the Republican and Democratic parties that force should be on the table if there is an Iran with Nuclear
weapons save some individuals like Rand Paul who favour 'containment' force... which is not exactly a force by invasion in Iranian territory but
still includes military force that may verywell be viewed as a threat to Iran's security.
It seems like there is a clear line in Washington DC, but what about the people? Many were so quick to oppose intervention in Iran but is this in all
cases? Are people willing to accept a nuclear Iran? What do ATSers think? Will military force be justified in this case? Personally my position is
that even with a nuclear Iran it is not our role to police the world. I think it's important the United States continue to develop defensive measures
to ensure a response if there is sufficient evidence over use of nuclear weapons, however invading a country over development of nuclear weapons? Like
Iraq in which we justified invasion over development of WMD's, I feel the same for Iran. We don't have the right to different standards to other
nations to ourselves. We do have the right to defend our allies and ourselves but I believe that defense ends at the borders of our allies, not beyond
it. What do ATSers think? Remember we're talking about a worst case scenario here, a nuclear Iran.