This is a simple poll asking whether you believe that Iran poses sufficient threat to US interests that US military action is warranted in the near future (let’s say within the next three years). The questions are these:
If Iran should develop a nuclear capability within the next few years, what, in your view, is the percentage likelihood that Iran would use such weapons (or make them available to another party) in a first strike on a neighbor or perceived enemy?
Yes or no: should the US carry out covert or overt raids on any facilities determined, beyond a reasonable doubt, to be supporting an Iranian nuclear program?
Yes or no: should the US carry out an invasion with the objective of regime change in Iran?
Those wishing to editorialize should do so in the GD or Pit threads on this subject.
My opinion: <5%, No and No.
I realize that the makup of the SDMB does not necessarily represent that of the general population, but I’m curious about the general attitude toward this issue.
Not right now, although attempting a coup might work considering the discontent among the younger generation. By the time Iraq looks up, this may be an option.
1. If Iran should develop a nuclear capability within the next few years, what, in your view, is the percentage likelihood that Iran would use such weapons (or make them available to another party) in a first strike on a neighbor or perceived enemy?
In a first strike? 5-10%. Retaliatory? 15-20% As a huge bargaining chip? 80%
2. Yes or no: should the US carry out covert or overt raids on any facilities determined, beyond a reasonable doubt, to be supporting an Iranian nuclear program?
No. Let the Israelis take care of it. Provide intel, logistics, even materiel support if absolutely needed, but the last thing we need is any direct military involvement.
3. Yes or no: should the US carry out an invasion with the objective of regime change in Iran?
No way in hell. I cannot think a realistic worse way to further destroy any credibility we have in the Arab and Islamic worlds. Hell, in the world at large.
If Iran should develop a nuclear capability within the next few years, what, in your view, is the percentage likelihood that Iran would use such weapons (or make them available to another party) in a first strike on a neighbor or perceived enemy?
Very small. If Kim Jong Il, India, and Pakistan haven’t gone nuclear, I see no reason to believe Iran would.
Yes or no: should the US carry out covert or overt raids on any facilities determined, beyond a reasonable doubt, to be supporting an Iranian nuclear program?
Covert, sure. Overt? No.
Yes or no: should the US carry out an invasion with the objective of regime change in Iran?
Iran will never use its nukes… unless attacked of course. They aren’t crazy. If you think US bombing is nasty… imagine a total freezing of all commercial ties and blockade.
Attacking will only delay things a year or two… either the US gives credible choices or accepts a nuclear Iran eventually. So no covert or overt makes sense.
Invasion ? Impossible. They might attempt supporting a coup d’etat at best.
Hi folks; thanks for the answers so far and for resisting as much as possible what may be an almost overwhelming urge to editorialize on the issue. Assuming this gets more than ten or 15 responses, I’ll tally up the results in a day or two.
In this age of instant and pervasive media coverage, there is no such thing as large-scale covert military action. Should the US wage covert action against Iran, it will go “overt” within days–and then brace yourself for saturation media coverage and a sensational Congressional inquiry, followed by the airing of opinions on talk shows, newspaper editorial columns, and late-night monologues.
My guess is that Israel may force the U.S.'s hand. Either way, Iran will get its nukes, but using even one weapon would likely trigger a devastating reprisal.
A more worrisome issue: Will rogue elements in Iran (redundant, I know) share this technology with terrorist groups? I think it likely.
No. Iran has a very well developed nuclear program. If there were sites identifiably devoted to a nuclear weapons program, perhaps… power plant fuel processing is not a weapons program.
No. It didn’t work the last time. The situation will take care of itself as the next generation takes over, anyway.
Zero percent. Iran’s position is that the U.S. and Israel are Satan and need to be destroyed with nuclear weapons. So? Maybe they’re right. But still, zero percent.
No. Live and let live. The US has nuclear weapons–why shouldn’t every other nation on earth? Only if Iran does something nuclear on US soil first, which they never would, should we even think about reacting–and then only with U.N. permission.
No! Democracy is wrong for Afghanistan, Lebanon, and Iraq, and is far less safe for the world at large than Islamic totalitarianism. In fact, WE should quit stalling and switch over now before more people have to die. Think about it. Only when the world is one unified pan-Islamic state, as it should be, will there be no more need for talk of regime change and war. Then peace will rule the planet, and love will steer the stars.
