what should Iran do now in the current issue of its going for Nuclear energy?
148306
Why does Iran, one of the largest producers of oil in the world need nuclear energy?  They should stop trying to make nuclear weapons.
145148
I think so. Iran is wanting nuclear weapons. They should live under the same rules as everyone else.
1074524
iran if want  of course can do it  -only iran doesnt want.maybew in future iran change its idea .\nwho does know?
41704
most probably america will easily solve this by droping a nuke on the iranians...maybe they'll drop it on moscow too if its convientent since they like bombing up other countries like japan,vietnam,afghanistan,iraq....etc..
35000
In my opinion, I don't think that it is the United States' business to meddle in Iran's Nuclear Program.  Although there is the possibility of terrorism, all I see the U.S. getting out of Iran is oil, just like Iraq.  People really are paranoid about nations with the possibility of producing Nuclear Weapons.  Again, I think Iran should be free to explore its nuclear program, for the power-saving opportunities and such. \n\nThe bottom line . . . \nIran should explore its opportunities with Nuclear Power, and the U.S should keep its nose out of Iran's business.
903853
Stop Iran's endeavor.
41523
Your country's "President" needs to be wiped off the face of this earth and all it's Mullahs stripped of their power and moolah. ;-)\n\nOtherwise, I think we should nuke Iran.
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.
812881
Iran = has oil\nUS = wants oil
161945
Sometimes the entire Iran situation looks like Iraq, the current Iranian president 9being an independent candidate) seems like a perfect target to be the next Saddam Hussein. \n\nPolitically, the US is pressurizing the opposition to join them, as it is the governing regime will definitely go weak and then like in any other progressing economy they will have their foot in the door to make sure that there is a well paved road for them to commute whenever they want.\n\nI think only time will tell what exactly is the major game plan here, but one thing is sure it is not going to be a smooth ride and eventually the US will gain something substantial.
454565
Iran is not going to be able to develop nuclear weapons and a lot of nations, not just the U.S. would stand to oppose it with military force if need be.\n\nThe funny thing is, like most middle east oil producers, Iran has less than 13 months of capital to support its economy. A real embargo, a true cessation of all oil exports would so cripple the nation I doubt its government would last 90 days.\n\nSadly the east and west are so dependent on petroleum that solution is not likely to happen.
1030528
It's a good thing if we can monitor and help proliferate thier nuclear activities so they remain for energy only, not weapons.  Aiding Iran in this way could lead to future partnerships between our nations, and it sends a positive message to other countries about our ability to act diplomatically.\n\nIt's an important move symbolically, for our national security, and possibly a good business move.
670545
America’s Options Against Iran. Iran’s nuclear program is a matter of concern. The real question, of course, is “what can the United States do about it?”\n\nThe options are negotiate, launch aerial attacks to take out the nuclear program, or to enact regime change through one means or another. Negotiation is not exactly an option – Iran has pretty much ruled out any deal that would limit its nuclear weapons program. There is also the fact that the Israelis will not patiently sit by while the Iranians use negotiations to buy time to continue their nuclear weapons development. These two factors leave only the option of stopping the program through air attacks or regime change.\n\nAir attacks have huge problems. Iran has a widely-dispersed nuclear program. There are at least 23 cities (plus uranium mines) in this program. However, targeting does not just involve the nuclear program. Iran also has a huge missile program. There are 40 cities or islands involved with Iran’s missile program, which also would need to be hit – so as to limit or preferably eliminate delivery options for the Iranians. This means at least 63 sites have to be hit in order to guarantee a major disruption to the Iranian nuclear program and its delivery system.\n\nThe type of air attack involved would probably be on the order of the first day of the 1991 Gulf War, in which a devastating air attack was launched over a month’s time. Even that devastating attack was not enough to prevent Saddam Hussein from launching missiles against Israel and Saudi Arabia in the 1991 Gulf War. In 2003, special operations forces were able to prevent a large number of launches, but their use is a huge step forward. Iran has some modern planes (particularly the MiG-29 Fulcrum), but the majority of their aircraft are old F-14As, F-4 Phantoms, J-7 Fishbeds, and F-5E Tigers. An air campaign would be able to hit the sites, and degrade the program. Iranian response would unpredictable, though.\n\nThe best option to guarantee a halt to Iran’s nuclear weapons program is to overthrow the imams. There are two ways this can be done; sponsoring the domestic opposition (which has significant popular support), or through an invasion. The former option has worked in the past. In the 1980s, the CIA was able to keep the Polish Solidarity movement functioning as an opposition movement despite martial law and opposition by the Polish and Russian secret police. That said, the effort took eight years, and the CIA back then was run by William Casey. Today’s CIA has become more of a bureaucracy, and much more risk-averse. The other problem with such an effort is that the situation in Iran is markedly different in two respects: Poland did not have a lengthy history of sponsoring terrorist attacks, nor was that country trying to develop nuclear weapons.\n\nThe other option is an invasion. This is probably the touchiest option. Currently, Iraq involves 17 American  brigades and three division headquarters. Afghanistan involves another division headquarters and three brigades. The 2nd Infantry Division is pretty much committed to defending the Republic of Korea. Two more divisions are carrying out peacekeeping in various parts of the world (the Sinai, Kosovo, and Bosnia being major deployments on that front). This is seven out of 24 divisions available (12 active, 8 National Guard, 3 active Marine, one reserve Marine). The Army is arguably stretched thin, since some divisions will have returned from Iraq or Afghanistan. Until the situation in Iraq stabilizes or additional divisions are formed up, that will remain the case. Iraq has become an insurgency, and those take time (usually five to ten years). Iran would, in all likelihood, develop a similar insurgency. That will further tie down American forces in the region.\n\nThe options against Iran are limited, in large part due to the “peace dividend” of the 1990s, in which eight active-duty and four National Guard divisions were dis
402581
It shouldn't be a first option.  The ideal situation would be an internal revolution in Iran, I can't imagine that the average Iranian is terribly happy with Ahmadinejad and Khamenei though the Iranian police state has so far been able to keep them in power.  I think that diplomatic options need to be exhausted before military options are exercised, but it is up to Iran how far this goes.  If they allow the IAEA in to monitor and verify their claim that they are trying to generate Nuclear power for civilian purposes (which all current evidence indicates is not the case) then the world will probably let them do so, however if Iran begins deploying and/or exporting Nuclear Weapons they will have to be stopped, and it would be imprudent to take any option off the table before their intentions are known.
485984
Take it at 95%. The US, Britain, and France all are getting tough on the UN to stop Iran from its nuclear program. But as you know IRan is not listening and probably won't listen into they have obtained nuclear weapons.
132477
Interesting question.  \n\nOn the one hand, the US and other nations rightly perceive Iran as a threat, and don't want Iran to have the power to build nuclear power plants, as this could lead to nuclear weapons.\n\nOn the other hand, Iran rightly perceives the US as a threat, and the Iranian leadership is responding to that with tough talk, and refusal to back down.  Which then feeds into other countries perceiving Iran as a threat, and it's a vicious circle.\n\nPersonally, I'm not sure what to say.  I don't want Iran to have nuclear weapons, and it would be hard for them to have nuclear power plants without getting access to nuclear weapons technology.  The proposal that Russia refine the uranium that is used in Iranian power plants completely misses the point of the issue, which is independenc/autonomy.  \n\nUnfortunately, I think the short-term answer is a lot of behind-the-scenes diplomacy, ending in face-saving measures for all sides, and a lot of backing down.  Perhaps something like Iran stops trying to develop nuclear power, and other nations help them develop sustainable, clean energy from other sources.  Bet solar panels would be very effective over there.  In private, meanwhile, Western nations would perhaps agree to stop developing new nuclear power plants or nuclear weapons, and claim publically some other reason.  It sounds like we're giving up a lot there, but really we're only giving up things that put us at danger anyway, because it's impossible to make a nuclear plant _completely_ safe from terrorist attack, and the development of new nuclear weapons just leads to proliferation.
359795
The country has oil, be aware, very aware Bush is shopping for just such a state. We will do Iran first though, they have more oil