Is War between the U.S. and Iran Inevitable

Is War between the U.S. and Iran Inevitable?

PRO: Yes, the war between the U.S. and Iran is inevitable because…

The war will discourage Iran from developing nuclear weapon
Iran is the most serious challenge to the U.S. security
It will help in destroying terrorism grounds and its leadership
The Iranian strongly believes in Muslim faith while U.S. believes in Christianity.
The officials and victim’s families expressed outrages to the Iranian president.
The letter President Ahamadinejad wrote to President Bush on May 8.
The U.S. is the Super Power and so has to consider its security as well as the entire world at large.

CON: No, the war between the U.S. and Iran should is not inevitable because…

It will lead to massive economy down fall to the U.S. and Iran.
Death and injury on people especially innocent of citizens
Both countries share economical and political ties.
The money might be used in other beneficial agenda rather than war.
The Iranian government is debating re-establishing relationship with the U.S.
The war will not end terrorism attacks but more likely spear head it.
Nuclear reactors that are used to produce electricity are lower to be used a nuclear weapon.

A number of people think that the war will discourage the Iranian from developing nuclear weapons. According John Bolton, who is the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, cited a report as “ample evidence” that Iran was defying the international community. The report concluded, “After all these years of trying, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) is still unable to confirm the peace nature of Iran’s nuclear programs’. Inspectors have not covered any concrete proof that Iran’s nuclear program is a military nature. At the same time, there is standstill with regard to the resolution of outstanding issue that would clarify the peaceful nature of the Iranian program. If the diplomacy to understand the nature of nuclear program in Iran has failed then let the U.S. apply force, which is war (Tucker 12).

The second reason is that the latest National Security Strategy published earlier this year labeled Iran as the most serious challenge to the U.S. posed by any security. Despite the fact that there is no evidence that Iran even developing nuclear weapons in the first place, the Bush administration and congressional leaders urges that simply by having the technology which will make it theoretically possible for Iranian to manufacture nuclear (The Washington Post 12).

The war will morally help to destroy terrorism in the whole world but it is only possible if Iranian is defected. Iran according to President Bush, they are believed to be world-leading sponsor of terrorism. Being a peaceful oriented individual, he rallied friend to confront it before it is too late (Bennis 74).

Both nations’ holds on different spiritual beliefs it is difficult for them reach a permanent solution about their differences that is why the Iranian president wrote a letter to U.S. president. The document broke 27 years of official and hostile silence between leaders of the two governments contained no proposals for solving confrontations over Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Ahmadinejad sharply criticized Bush on brutal range of fonts, suggesting that the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, abuses of detainees in U.S.-run facilities from Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, and support for Israel were unconsidered with the Bush Christianity faith. He claimed, “Can one be a follower of Jesus Christ, the greater messenger of God but at the same time, have countries attacked the lives, reputation and possession of people destroyed”. These showed that Iran is ready to face the U.S. for war (Cirincione 4).

After a serious terror attack hallowed ground on which many Americans were killed, the officials and the victim’s family threatened to skin alive the Iran president had he stepped on the site of the worst terror attack of the American soil this was indeed to proclaim war. Lastly, being the Super Power the U.S. should make efforts to force Iran to be open about the nuclear that threatens the world’s security (Kaveh and Abbas 74).

In the other hand, war should not be evitable because it leads to massive destruction of the economy nations have tried to build over decades in just but few days. The money that could have been used into facilitating war can be used in providing other essential job like improving the education system, eradicating poverty or even feeding the hungry (Wright 41).

The second reason why war is evitable is that it will lead to massive killing of innocent citizens of both countries. Leading too many remain as widows and orphans. In Ahmadinejad letter to Americans he explained that, while divine providences has placed geographical apart, we should be cognizant that human values and our common human spirit which proclaim the dignity and exalted withal human beings have brought our two great nation together. Both nations are God fearing, trust worthy and justice seeking and both seek dignity respect and perfection (Messerli 47).

Another reason why both countries should not go to war is the fact that Iranian Islamic government is debating on re-establishing diplomatic relationship with the U.S. for the first time in 23 years and is holding a secretes talk with the U.S. diplomats in Geneva on a range of issues , including the new shape of Iraq government. The Geneva session which grew out of earlier multilateral discussion Afghanistan are the sort of direct high-level talks the U.S. has long sort with Iran, a regional power (Tucker 15).

It is also alleged that, last year president Mahmond Ahmadinejad ordered his foreign minister to create a separate desk for Americans. Until then, affairs related to the Americans were lumped to with Europe. The desk was mainly created in anticipation of expanding economic and political ties with both North and South American. Top diplomats from Iran and U.S. met in Hague to discuss security and stability in Afghanistan.

Lastly, National Security Strategy document published that Iran is the most serious challenge to the U.S. posed by security. This should be an indicator of how safe the US is in the post-cold war world. The most serious challenge is no longer a rival superpower with thousands of nuclear weapon sophisticated delivery systems capable of destroying the US but a third world country on the far side of the planet which according to the latest National Intelligent Estimate out of wisdom is at least 10 years away from actually producing usable nuclear weapon. Furthermore, Iran has no capacity to develop any delivery system in the near future capable of loading a weapon 10000 miles of the US shores (Wehrey 74).

In conclusion, for the US to led attacks would automatically spearhead the phase of war, this would be called an ‘opening act of an extended drama whose scenes would be unfold’ according to the emergent logic of its own. Given the political on which military engages would rest, even a minor attack would likely become a major test of strength involving US, Iran and a host of allies and associates. It is still dangerous for the US to try a simple raid or a broaden operation leading to war, with attendants potential high costs on all combatant in terms of military casualities, civilian damage and economic disrupted.

No one can tell the technical status of Iran nuclear program, or the actual state of readiness of Iranian forces. The US government may not know the decision-making and implementation protocols of the Iran government, how the Iranian military or people may react to an attack. Personally talking about war anything can happen that might outrageous to control.

It might be simple if we try to reduce the whole argument to just two sides, those who fear the readiness acquisition of nuclear weapons more than the consequences of war. In this case, simplicity has the virtue of capturing the essence as observers ponder which set of unpalatable risks they would rather run. The remarkable is that the two sides usually put forth may place different assessments of what using force would entail. Those who fears Iranian nukes tent to exaggerate them. Neither side, however, has persuasively spelled out the reason for their assessment leading one to suspect that much of argument rests on less than rigoms analysis. Wars are notorious for they may yield unintended and unexpected consequences.

Work Cited

Baer, Robert. Is a U.S.-Iran War Inevitable? 29 May 2007. 28 February 2012 <http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1604546,00.html>.

Bennis, Phyllis. Understanding the US-Iran crisis: a primer. New York: Olive Branch Press, 2009.

Cirincione, Joseph. “Iran: U.S. Expert Weighs Pros And Cons Of Nuclear Compromise .” 2012. 29 Feb 2012 <http://www.rferl.org/content/article/1066528.html>.

Kaveh, Afrasiabi and Maleki Abbas. Iran’s Foreign Policy After September 11. New York: Booksurge, 2008.

Messerli, Joe. “Should the United States Go to War with Iran? .” 2012. balancedpolitics.org. 29 Feb 2012 <http://www.balancedpolitics.org/iran_war.htm>.

Peterson, Scott. “Iran’s Peace Museum: The reality vs. the glories of war.” The Christian Science Monitor (2007): 12.

The Washington Post. “Iran Protests U.S. Aerial Drones.” 5 November 2005. The Washington Post. 28 February 2012 <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/07/AR2005110701450.html>.

Tucker, Spencer. The Encyclopedia of Middle East Wars: The United States in the Persian Gulf, Afghanistan, and Iraq Conflicts, Volume 1. New York: ABC-CLIO, 2010.

Wehrey, Frederic. The Iraq effect: the Middle East after the Iraq War. New York: Rand Corporation, 2010.

Wright, Steven. The United States and Persian Gulf Security: The Foundations of the War on Terror. New York: Ithaca Press, 2007.