United States Should Not Take Military Action in Iran
The United States should take military action in Iran
(AGAINST)
1. No definite proof that Iran’s nuclear ambitions are hostile. 2. United States need to make a substantial investment of political and military capital to the Middle East in the midst of an economic crisis and at a time when it is attempting to shift its forces out of the region. . Deterrence would come with enormous economic and geopolitical costs and would have to remain in place as long as Iran remained hostile to U.S. interests, which could mean decades or longer. Given the instability of the region, this effort might still fail, resulting in a war far more costly and destructive than the one that critics of a pre-emptive strike on Iran now hope to avoid. 3. Global Economic Crisis - Potentially devastating consequences--for international security, the global economy, and Iranian domestic politics--all of which need to be accounted for. 4. United States might not know the location of Iran's key facilities, possible that the regime already possesses nuclear assets that a bombing campaign might miss, which would leave Iran's program damaged but alive. 5. Destroying Iran’s nuclear plant may prove hard, Critics of a U.S. assault argue that Iran's nuclear facilities are dispersed across the country, buried deep underground and hardened against attack, and ringed with air defenses, making a raid complex and dangerous. In addition, they claim that Iran has purposefully placed its nuclear facilities near civilian populations, which would almost certainly come under fire in a U.S. raid, potentially leading to hundreds, if not thousands, of deaths. 6. NO guarantee that an assault would deter Iran from attempting to rebuild its plants; it may even harden Iran's resolve to acquire nuclear technology as a means of retaliating or protecting itself in the future. 7. Spark full blown war - Iran might retaliate against U.S. troops or allies, launching missiles at military installations
(AGAINST)
1. No definite proof that Iran’s nuclear ambitions are hostile. 2. United States need to make a substantial investment of political and military capital to the Middle East in the midst of an economic crisis and at a time when it is attempting to shift its forces out of the region. . Deterrence would come with enormous economic and geopolitical costs and would have to remain in place as long as Iran remained hostile to U.S. interests, which could mean decades or longer. Given the instability of the region, this effort might still fail, resulting in a war far more costly and destructive than the one that critics of a pre-emptive strike on Iran now hope to avoid. 3. Global Economic Crisis - Potentially devastating consequences--for international security, the global economy, and Iranian domestic politics--all of which need to be accounted for. 4. United States might not know the location of Iran's key facilities, possible that the regime already possesses nuclear assets that a bombing campaign might miss, which would leave Iran's program damaged but alive. 5. Destroying Iran’s nuclear plant may prove hard, Critics of a U.S. assault argue that Iran's nuclear facilities are dispersed across the country, buried deep underground and hardened against attack, and ringed with air defenses, making a raid complex and dangerous. In addition, they claim that Iran has purposefully placed its nuclear facilities near civilian populations, which would almost certainly come under fire in a U.S. raid, potentially leading to hundreds, if not thousands, of deaths. 6. NO guarantee that an assault would deter Iran from attempting to rebuild its plants; it may even harden Iran's resolve to acquire nuclear technology as a means of retaliating or protecting itself in the future. 7. Spark full blown war - Iran might retaliate against U.S. troops or allies, launching missiles at military installations