미국은이란의 핵 시설에 표적으로 공습을 실시해야 하는가?

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

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

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

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.

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.

We should send Navy Seals in to shut down the program

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

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

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

Iran cannot be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons, period.

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

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

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.

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

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

No, we could gain more enemies by increasing attacks.

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

go after upstream processes and the unranium supply

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

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

This is a very difficult question and I feel that Mr Obama and Mr Kerry have been dealing in fairy dust. Nice story but not believable. I think it was purposeful that Mr Netanyahu referred to Persia during his address before the Congress. There are delusional people at the head of the Iranian regime and with Putin as a neighbor it almost makes you feel nostalgic about the Soviet Union.

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.

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, 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.

No, but we should not have nuclear capabilities either

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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.

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