האם ארה"ב לנהל תקיפות אוויריות ממוקדות על מתקני הגרעין של איראן?

We should utilize covert operations to prevent Iran from ever having full nuclear capability. We should increase sanctions to isolate Iran economically, support opposition to the regime within Iran and keep open as a last resort plans to act with military force against Iran's nuclear facilities.

No, unless we are ready to declare war on another country, we have no business deciding what they can or cannot do with their own weapons programs.

Yes, Iran has no legitimate use for fissionable materials.
All nuclear sites (regardless of banality) should be destroyed, immediately.
No, Iranian, Pakistani, Indian, Chinese, Russian, or student from potentially problematic country shall be permitted to study nuclear science.

I am an American who feels that we have taken on the role of the world's parent without being asked most of the time....this, to me, is much the same as having a nosy neighbor who sticks their nose in your business without being asked and very much unwanted...no wonder our military costs are so exorbitant.

Yes, but only if the United States is prepared for an all out War in the Middle East. That means total commitment to overthrowing the Iranian Radically Islamist Regime. It is silly to win a battle and lose a war.

Yes, but only after "reasonable diplomatic options fail" AND, if intelligence provides undeniable evidence they are making weapons

Only as a last resort and as part of international coalition signed pact.

No, if there is a diplomatic process in progress then there is no reason to strike

We should send Navy Seals in to shut down the program

go after upstream processes and the unranium supply

No, you're gonna blow a whole country with all that nuclear weapon, leaving a big impact against the citizens of that country. We're only out to fight what is wrong, not create a genocide.

Iran cannot be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons, period.

No, and the US should open up diplomatic relations with Iran

We won't have to Israel and Saudi Arabia will do it

This reality will become increasingly the only option if Iran fails to comply with any treaty's terms, once Iran recoups their frozen billions the dangers to ours warriors will increase, and the chance for success diminishes.

No, should Iran's nuclear weapons program get out of control a cyber attack would be far more effective, and have no collateral damage.

Yes, but only in the event that we receive <reliable> intelligence that would lead us to believe that otherwise such nuclear weapons would be used offensively rather than as a defensive deterrent.

No, because it would cause more tension between the countries and also hurt the environment if a nuclear plant is just destroyed.

Although I support the reduction of Iran's nuclear weapons, airstriking a nuclear facility causes larger environmental, health, political, and social issues.

No; cease attacks and sanctions on Iran and provide reparations for crimes committed against the Iranians, which pursuing the crimes and human rights abuses of the Iranian state by legal, reasonable means.

No, we could gain more enemies by increasing attacks.

No. But the U.S. should provide nuclear weapons to Israel to provide a deterrent to nuclear weapons being used against Israel.

No, but Iran should be threatened with sure destruction if it detonated a nuclear weapon outside its borders.

No, there is no evidence that Iran has nuclear weapons facilities

Whenever someone tries to win a war before it begins, innocent people get hurt.

No, unless the U.S. officially declares war on Iran

Not by airstrike but by ground to reduce fatalities and reduce damage to the country

Yes, if given permission from the UN to go ahead with the bombing

Only if they are in violation of the terms of the nuclear proliferation agreements, and only if all other options have been exhausted.

Only if we know they are making weapons. We should not be bombing peaceful nuclear energy plants.

No, because sending airstrikes on Iran's nuclear weapons facilities could possibly cause radiation to harm innocent civilians.

No, but we should not have nuclear capabilities either

We can always legitimately threaten them. You know, that thing we don't do.

Not necessary. The U.S. should not be the only country involved in stemming Iran's rampant hostility, nor ISIS, nor any terrorist group. If Iran lacked the ability and the money to create such facilities, there would not be a need to perform an airstrike. That would require the involvement of multiple countries working in concert.

Yes, only with substantial evidence and if Iran refuses inspections. I support the idea of Iran having the right to use Nuclear power as an energy source but I am against them(and anyone else) obtaining nuclear weapons. I fear they would be used against Isreal someday causing more chaos across the middle east and possibly starting a World War/Nuclear War.

No, but the US should support other countries in their conduct of airstrikes against Iran's nuclear weapons.

Certainly, if we can identify where and what they are. Screwing around the way we are will guarantee that some country will take the situation into there own hands.

The Bible tells us to be good stewards of the Earth. Creating a nuclear catastrophe violates that instruction.

Iran is a rogue nation - isolate them and cut them off - then watch how long the poisonous serpent survives.