Issue #8 Blog

Both sides of the taking sides article "Should the United States Preemptively Attack Iranian Nuclear Facilities?" believe something "fishy" is going on in Iran in respect to nuclear advances. Although there is something odd going on, I do not believe the United States has any reason to bomb Iran.
The "yes" side of the argument states, "What argues for early preemption is the risk that self defense may come too late if it waits too long." The problem with this argument can be seen because we have no evidence of nuclear facilities in operation with intent of harming other countries. Not only is there no evidence, but it is proven that Iranians do not have the mental capacity to construct weapons of mass destruction: "...the state oil company still cannot drill exploratory wells without foreign assistance" (141). If Iran is not able to drill it's own oil, resulting in having to "import one third of the gasoline it consumes because it cannot be refined at home" (141), how would Iran be able to construct nuclear weapons? America's fear is driving it's desire to bomb a country that is not capable of harming us.
Iran, without the mental capacity and means to construct nuclear weapons, is of no concern to America. Bombing Iran would only cause more problems. Other countries would see us as the aggressor. Some believe it would be good for other countries to fear us, but I believe if other countries fear us, they would be more quick to unleash their attacks on the United States if there was a conflict.
There is no reason to bomb Iran without plausible evidence that the country has nuclear weapons and intends on using them. America has nuclear weapons, why can we have them while other countries can't?