Do you support preemptive strikes on Iran?

2. A pre-emptive strike on Iran would set off a significant war in the Middle East. And one, which would have the potential to go nuclear, very quickly.

3. No one nation has the right to nuclear weapons above all nations. Even if we disagree with the idea of a nuclear, and lets beat about the bush, that's a terrifying prospect, it should equally be abhorrant that Israel has many more nuclear weapons than Iran does, and refuses to comply with international law.

4. Iran have a more reasonable government than they did just two years ago.

I used to really support the idea of strikes on Iran but having put more thought into it I can't see them achieving anything. At present Iran appears to be developing a break out capability, so bombs within a few months, rather than actually building a stock. This will be very attractive to their leaders as it provides a hedge against future crisis, whilst not bringing about the consequences that having a bomb will cause.

If this changes all strikes will achieve is pushing back the the program, rather than destroying it. Iran will then appear justified developing the bomb, the hardliners will be strengthened and Iran will no doubt retaliate asymmetrically through its various proxies. Most of what strikes are meant to prevent, a nuclear Iran and the destabilizing effect on the region will themselves be caused through attacking Iran, making them pointless.

To my mind what we should do is continue the current course, sanctions and negotiation. If Iran does develop a bomb the best response would be containment and the reassurement of allies in the region to stop a nuclear arms race.

Good luck getting the Saudis on board that policy.

Yes that would be the main issue. It's not even like they'd have to develop a nuke. They'd just buy some from the Pakistanis

So what's your solution to Iran then?

Pretty much.

In my opinion, Iran must not, under any circumstances, be able to acquire a nuclear weapon, as it would ignite a nuclear arms race in the region, possibly between more than the two obvious powers: Iran and Saudi Arabia.

With Egypt distancing itself from the United States, how will it react? A nuclear weapon would become essential if any of the current regional powers wished to remain in the category, and thus it isn't far-fetched to imagine a nuclear Turkey.

That's four potential nuclear states, with two dead certs, in the Middle East joining Israel. What happens if we witness another Iranian or Egyptian revolution? Or a credible Arab Spring makes its way into the Kingdom, the birthplace of Salafism? Who takes power? What's their agenda? What happens to the nuclear weapons?

The world becomes slightly more ****ed up knowing that a bunch of theocratic loonies both have an apocalyptic weapon - and, in theory, neither side will be afraid to use it because they were given the OK by their god.

But then what do you do if the current path does not work? I fully understand wanting to stop Iran gaining an nuke, I'm just not convinced there are many ways to do it. Strikes will merely push the program back a few years if that. Some of the Iranian nuclear facilities may well require a tactical nuke just to ensure their destruction, depending on how much faith Israel has in the bunker busters they brought from the US recently.

Then you have a torn up Middle East anyway. I don't really see a credible path if the current one does not work, unless you want a full scale invasion of Iran. That would no doubt solve the issue, and create Iraq 2.0, the much more expensive and gritty sequel.

Of course not. Such a strike would be criminally insane. There's very little, if any, evidence that Iran are trying to develop nuclear weapons, and if the United States really wanted to prevent them from attaining them, they could vote for the non-proliferation treaty to be enforced, but that would mean that their ally, Israel, would have to give up their nuclear weapons as well.

It would lead to a lot of unnecessary death and destruction and, as I said, there's virtually no evidence that Iran want to develop nuclear weapons. Negotiations are currently in progress, anyway.

Furthermore, it's Netanyahu who advocates it, and he's certainly criminally insane. Even the United States are starting to get sick of his antics and his attempts to undermine the negotiations with Iran. He's a pathetic warmonger.

No. It's not even an option.

1. Iran are useful allies, in the war on terror and against ISIS. We need to have at least a working relationship with Iran.
2. A pre-emptive strike on Iran would set off a significant war in the Middle East. And one, which would have the potential to go nuclear, very quickly.
3. No one nation has the right to nuclear weapons above all nations. Even if we disagree with the idea of a nuclear, and lets beat about the bush, that's a terrifying prospect, it should equally be abhorrant that Israel has many more nuclear weapons than Iran does, and refuses to comply with international law.
4. Iran have a more reasonable government than they did just two years ago.

The important point to make here is a nuclear Iran cannot be tolerated. If they were in the final stage of building a nuke then we must stop them at all costs.

The second point to make though is that ISIS have presented us with an opportunity in that its paved a path towards relations with Iran. What we we need to do is show them the benefits of complying with the west.

So yes if it gets that bad.. But not now. Indeed in the best case scenario we might get access to some of that black gold.

...

Can somebody explain why they view Iranians as more progressive than Iraqi's. Before ISIS the general perception was that Shia's are far nuttier than Sunni's.