1. No definite proof that Iran’s nuclear ambitions are hostile. 2. United States need to make a substantial investment of political and military capital to the Middle East in the midst of an economic crisis and at a time when it is attempting to shift its forces out of the region. . Deterrence would come with enormous economic and geopolitical costs and would have to remain in place as long as Iran remained hostile to U.S. interests, which could mean decades or longer. Given the instability of the region, this effort might still fail, resulting in a war far more costly and destructive than the one that critics of a pre-emptive strike on Iran now hope to avoid. 3. Global Economic Crisis - Potentially devastating consequences--for international security, the global economy, and Iranian domestic politics--all of which need to be accounted for. 4. United States might not know the location of Iran's key facilities, possible that the regime already possesses nuclear assets that a bombing campaign might miss, which would leave Iran's program damaged but alive. 5. Destroying Iran’s nuclear plant may prove hard, Critics of a U.S. assault argue that Iran's nuclear facilities are dispersed across the country, buried deep underground and hardened against attack, and ringed with air defenses, making a raid complex and dangerous. In addition, they claim that Iran has purposefully placed its nuclear facilities near civilian populations, which would almost certainly come under fire in a U.S. raid, potentially leading to hundreds, if not thousands, of deaths. 6. NO guarantee that an assault would deter Iran from attempting to rebuild its plants; it may even harden Iran's resolve to acquire nuclear technology as a means of retaliating or protecting itself in the future. 7. Spark full blown war - Iran might retaliate against U.S. troops or allies, launching missiles at military installations or civilian populations in the Gulf or perhaps even Europe. It could activate its proxies abroad, stirring sectarian tensions in Iraq, disrupting the Arab Spring, and ordering terrorist attacks against Israel and the United States. This could draw Israel or other states into the fighting and compel the United States to escalate the conflict in response. ( Powerful allies of Iran, including China and Russia, may attempt to economically and diplomatically isolate the United States.
Despite the call to arms, there has been no definitive proof that Iran's nuclear ambitions are hostile. Iran has, for years, claimed that its enrichment of uranium is part of a civilian nuclear energy program. The International Atomic Energy Agency, which oversees Iran's nuclear progress, seems to support this view, acknowledging that Iran's enrichment efforts have yielded only the type of low-grade uranium needed to fuel its newly constructed nuclear power reactor at Bushehr. A 2007 U.S. intelligence report also concluded that Iran ceased its nuclear weapons program in 2003 due to international pressures. That report estimated that at Iran's reduced pace of enrichment, it could not acquire enough weapons-grade uranium until sometime between 2010 and 2015.
These security threats would require Washington to contain Tehran. Yet deterrence would come at a heavy price. To keep the Iranian threat at bay, the United States would need to deploy naval and ground units and potentially nuclear weapons across the Middle East, keeping a large force in the area for decades to come. Alongside those troops, the United States would have to permanently deploy significant intelligence assets to monitor any attempts by Iran to transfer its nuclear technology. And it would also need to devote perhaps billions of dollars to improving its allies' capability to defend themselves. This might include helping Israel construct submarine-launched ballistic missiles and hardened ballistic missile silos to ensure...