The Economist Asks

Should America be more aggressive in confronting Iran?

You voted: NoCurrent total votes: 303（筆者補充圖片長條圖：33% say Yes, 67% say No）

Background reading:

Bombing Iran is not the answer

The probability of an attack has been increasing

Nuclear diplomacy has stalled

Sanctions have gone from half-hearted to harsh

Should America be more aggressive in confronting Iran?

Feb 27th 2012, 18:27

No. And the second “No” is for this title because it seems to incite the nerve. No question of America’s unreasonable action to Iran because, OH, America DO IT ONE MORE TIME, taking their closer way to old one for then Iraq president Saddam Hussein.

I don’t think the military mean can again be used in middle eastern area. This geopolitical issue now reaches the horrible balance. The incumbent Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad still walk on the pro-nuclear road but there is only India’s terribly-old prime minister Monmohann Singh supporting Iran’s president for oil at the present time. Basically, the sanction is effeictively formed and Iran is not the kind of last year’s nation in Arabian Spring list. International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has meddled with this issue for several months.

America is reluctant to see any power rising in this area while Iran insists on its own soverignty. Since IAEA already takes certain measures, we may cool down waiting for a minute and see the near future. As a whole, to rise the problem into the geopolitical issue’s circumstance must not be smart action. Well, for any reasearcher and any government in the world, no one wants to be exhausted on his own anymore.

    Recommended

    3

    Report

    Permalink

    reply

筆者在這裡反對美國又無謂的干涉仍未有明確證據的擁核證據，和當時的中國、印度官方偏一致。而且正接受IAEA調查，雖然阿瑪丹嘉是一國家主義者，似乎有擴武打算，但並不是不理國際上慣例及國內的反對派牽制，雖然輿論回應偏美國應強烈干涉，但是看了之後還是投no的那方。比起阿拉伯之春和近年的朝鮮半島核武危機，波斯灣局勢穩定多了。