18 October 2012
Terrorism and national security have been at an all time high after the attacks of 9/11 and the war in the middle east. As one of President Barrack Obama's advisers, weighing the options for what to do about Iran possibly becoming a nuclear power has never been more important. Two main strategies are on the forefront, monitoring the situation like we have been doing or going ahead and bombing their nuclear sites and possibly their government officials. Both situations have ramifications to which could possibly be detrimental to our country, but the positive results of them need to outweigh the bad. The negatives of each strategy look to be a positive for the other, which both have plenty. The highlighted goal is to keep Iran from becoming the tenth nuclear power while keeping the future outlook of America in mind.
Stepping back and monitoring what they are doing has been working so far for us, keeping our country out of a war with Iran. An attack of their nuclear technology would spark retaliation and possibly a full out war, which we have been trying so hard to get out of for the past decade. Besides our decision to observe and wait, we also have to take into consideration Israel's involvement. With the tension between Israel and Iran seemingly growing as the days go by, keeping Israel from attacking Iran keeps some stability in the Middle East. “Amid rising concern of a looming military confrontation, the Islamist regime gave warning of the consequences that would be unleashed by the use of force to end its nuclear ambitions. Eshagh al-Habib, Tehran's deputy ambassador to the United Nations, said that Iran "is strong enough to defend itself and reserves its full right to retaliate with full force against ant attack"”(Blomfield). A regional outbreak of war would be very costly to the area and America would most likely step in to help Israel.
Another point to this plan of...