Do you support a military strike to degrade or destroy Iran's nuclear program?

[politicus]

Yes, allowing the Iranians to get nukes is too risky.

[politicus]

Definitely not. I find it strange that the hawks continue to hype up the Iran thing after the rise of ISIS.

The idiotic hawks think we can fight Assad, Iran, ISIS, and al Nusra at the same time.

Time matters.

Once Iran has nuclear weapons there is no turning back, so even if they are usefull now, that is not in itself a definite reason not to destroy their nuclear capability - if possible.

[politicus]

Voting yes on this is an insane troll position.

Hardly. Allowing a regime as anti-Western as the Iranian to become a nuclear power has severe long term consequences.

[politicus]

Voting yes on this is an insane troll position.

Hardly. Allowing a regime as anti-Western as the Iranian to become a nuclear power has severe long term consequences.

Eh, Pakistan and North Korea being nuclear nations are more concerning.

All three are countries that ideally should not have nuclear capability, but unlike the others Iran can still be prevented from acquiring it.

[politicus]

Voting yes on this is an insane troll position.

Hardly. Allowing a regime as anti-Western as the Iranian to become a nuclear power has severe long term consequences.

Question: In the past five years, has Iran been noticeably less or more anti-Western? Have they actually done anything very recently to indicate anti-Westernism?

It is the fundamental nature of the regime and their alliances with extremists that are worrying, not recent policies per se.

This is a one-off - once they got nukes, they got them forever.

[politicus]

Some reasons why it might be a good idea to destroy Iran's nuclear program:

1. Some states in the region mght shift their allegiances to Iran.

2. Iran’s regional rivals (Saudi-Arabia should be a given) will launch their own nuclear initiatives to counter an Iranian bomb sparking a nuclear arms race.

3. A nuclear-armed Iran would immediately limit US freedom of action in the Middle East.

4. To constrain its rivals, Iran could choose to transfer nuclear technology to its allies - other countries and terrorist groups alike.

5. Having the bomb would give Iran greater cover for conventional aggression and coercive diplomacy - battles between its terrorist proxies and Israel could escalate.

6. Iran and Israel lack nearly all the safeguards that helped the US and the Soviet Union avoid a nuclear exchange during the Cold War - secure second-strike capabilities, clear lines of communication, long flight times for ballistic missiles from one country to the other and experience managing nuclear arsenals.

7. Even if a nuclear-armed Iran would not intentionally launch a suicidal nuclear war the volatile nuclear balance between Iran and Israel could easily spiral out of control as a crisis unfolds, resulting in a nuclear exchange between the two countries that could draw in the US.

Then there is the question whether the US would need to contain Iran to keep the threat at bay. If so,  the US would need to deploy naval and ground units and potentially nuclear weapons across the Middle East. Alongside those troops, the US would have to deploy significant intelligence assets to monitor any attempts by Iran to transfer its nuclear technology + devote a fortune to improve its allies’ capability to defend themselves.