Should America attack Iran or stick with Diplomacy?

Essay by sweetdin14University, Bachelor'sB+, November 2009

download word file, 5 pages 0.0

Downloaded 16 times

There has been an on going dispute with Iran's ambition of building weapons of mass destruction. Many might agree that they too have the right to build the nuclear weapons like most other countries, while others believe it would be a big mistake. With that being said, the question that arises is how should we prevent Iran from building these weapons of mass destruction? There are two sides that have a different approach to this issue. The hard liners believe that the United States should attack Iran and the advocates of diplomacy believe that the better option is through negotiation. However, the best option of stopping Iran from building nuclear weapons is through attacking them.

The leader of Iran has specifically shared one of his biggest ambitions to the public; stating that he wants to "Wipe Israel off the map" (Gerecht, 2006, para.8). According to Dershoweitz (2006), one of the successors in Iran has claimed to have reasoned that if Iran and Israel were to have a nuclear war, Iran would lose less civilians compared to Israel.

This lose wouldn't be a big a deal because there are much more Muslims global wide in comparison to the Jews (para.7). Now, after hearing such a bizarre factor from a leader that is building nuclear weapons, should Israel and the rest of the world just sit back and wait till these vague threats from Iran comes into to reality?Another reason that the hardliners believe that attacking Iran is a good option is because it is well known that Iran is anti-America. Gerecht (2006) feels if America doesn't utilize military strength to support the resistance of nuclear production regime against a state with a long documentation in terrorism; in that case nuclear production resistance is effectively over (para.9). Not only that, Iran...