can the iranian issue be settled diplomatically?
108905
I do not.   I believe that the current leader of Iran is extremely unstable and does not believe that he should anwer to then international audience.   He believes mostly of Iran's sovereignty and believes that it is all good for his country.  I believe that their leadership is unstable and should have a close eye on it.
87858
The U.S.A. is not just going to march into Iran there will be a lot of diplomacy tried first to resolve the issues that are concerning the world.  At least that is what I am understanding your question to mean.  There is much that can be done by the other Middle East Countries to try and defuse the problem.  If you are worried then others may be worried as well and if enough are worried and tell the government of Iran that they are worried then maybe this can be defused from the inside without bowwing to pressure from the U.S. and other coalition countries.
111544
Nothing. Just like they did in both Gulf Wars. If Turkey did not intercede when an Arab nation was invaded (Iraq, twice), they will not intercede when a non-Arab nation is attacked (Iran is a Muslim nation - NOT an Arab nation).\n\nTurkey understands that the balance of power would tilt unacceptably in Iran's favor if it developed nuclear weapons.
1006661
How we can stop the  great tension of war arouse from Iran in connection of nuclear plants that they have.
166715
the longer we wait the more causualities there will be.  Something needs to be done with Iran NOW.
491236
Yeah, but they all say that!! I would hope that we learned our lesson from the mess in Iraq about capriously taking things into our own hands. First off, I believe that Iran is all talk- similiar to that of North Korea, so I think it would be smart to continue diplomacy and get the backing of the world if/when that fails. Rushing in without world support will only lead to more problems.
147413
we will never know.  the iranian government is one of many (too many) that pretty much says what its citizens will believe.  they have no alternative.  oh there is the occasional protest, but nothing like what we enjoy in america (i am assuming that you are in america too).  So even if they do not agree with their president, they have no real opportunity to do anything about it.\n\nps- i'm sorry, i just read the part about you only wanting opinions from iranians.  hope it's ok if i just leave this here...
522781
I think the government of Iran would like that.
359730
iran will use it for peacefull golls .\nbelieve me
215505
India's deal?  Then yes.  This is from an answer I gave on a similar question:\n\nBy formally separating the military and civilian nuclear reasearch, India has giving the US, the UN, and the IAEA room to employ the Diplomatic portion of national power.\n\nNational power is dirived from the DIME principle (Diplomatic, Informational, Military, Economic). \n\nIn agreeing to separate the nuclear systems, India gave negotiation room to the US and the world, which may lead to regional disarmarment. The goal is to get Pakistan to agree to the same deal. By doing so, it allows the hostile countries to get away from an "all or nothing" position in nuclear negotiations. There are also economic benefits in this for both as they can avoid sanctions.\n\nIf this all works out (Diplomacy is the hardest to predict of the aspects of national power), then it could lead to an increase in regional stability and closer ties between India, Paskistan, and the world.\n\nThis also allows for more diplomacy than is possible with the Iranian situation. If Iran continues to isolate itself diplomatically and economically, other nations will have few options outside military force in dealing with Iran. Of course, seeing that they can maintain a civilian nuclear power system through diplomacy may make some of the cooler heads in Iran come around to negotiating.\n\nWith the dicators Iran has now, that, in my opinion, is doubtfull...
903853
Stop Iran's endeavor.
612648
Again, there's no point in even addressing what political issues you're implying, because it's a fact that Iran can not and will not set off a nuke here.  That would be considered an act of nuclear war, and we would retaliate with an unbelievable amount of nuclear firepower, which would squash Iran like a tiny bug under a giant boot.  You don't really want to enrage 300 million patriots backed by a trillion-dollar, apocalypse-bringing nuclear arsenal do you?
841424
Its worth a shot, would be even better, or easier to do if Iran wasnt trying to get Nukes.  Look its not in Iran or Syria's intrest to see Iraq completly out of control, they just want to it to be on the brink to embarass us, if it spirals out of their control they will have a serious problem on their hands.  I agree that we should not usually negotiate with rogue states, that is how the whole North Korea mess got out of hand, but this is a special problem,  realisticly not matter how long I support this war, a weary American public( unjustifiably so, but so nonetheless) will not support the war indefenintly, therefore we should take the correct steps for a gradual exit, if we can control the radical elements in Iraq in the short term by cutting off their support from Iran then we can crush them later.
387913
that should be something that Iran should worry about. and i also agree with the first answer. it saves us a war.
464915
No, it should not be attacked. At least not when Iran has not shown hostile deterence towards literal negotiations and attempts to hold peace talks.\n\nYes it should take a global effort, but it is to discourage the focus on nuclear technology, not to attack a country, and cause underlying problems to occur.\n\nIt is better to make the people of iran be convinced that the programme is wrong instead of hating the world for destroying what they deem as a need for their future.
460003
Nuclear power is not the issue.  Nuclear bombs are the issue. The president of Iran has said he wants to wipe out Israel, which is fine with me, but I doubt if Israel is going to just sit there and let itself be wiped out.  You can bet that Israel has plans to launch a strike on Iran and you can bet the US has a plan drawn up to invade, which is fine also. But I think that if the US launches an attack it should not necessarily be the same way as in Iraq with the goal of regime change.  The US should simply blow up all Iran's nuclear facilities and leave them totally disintegrated with absolutely nothing left but a big hole in the ground; if this means using nuclear weapons then fine.  Just blow the place up and leave it at that, and let the Iranians deal with the mess.  If they try to rebuild it, blow it up again, and so on forever.  Muslims are a very dangerous threat to mankind and should not be allowed to get a nuclear weapon, because they will come up with all this Allah jihad holy bullshit as justification to use it, which is all a crock of baloney anyway.
402373
I just spoke with a friend who's preparing to go to Iraq for the military.  Now he's not sure where exactly he'll be headed (Iraq or Iran).  But he and I agree that it is best to address the Iran issue BEFORE it becomes a PROBLEM.  It's easier to fix now than later.