The US should go to war with Iran

The MSNBC article and Christian Science Monitor article talk about how Iran has been rounding up and investigating Al Qaeda members in Iran; the Telegraph link takes you to the website's main page; and all the Time article says is that the Iranian government allowed Al Qaeda members to pass through its borders into Afghanistan 7 years ago. If the latter is enough justification to go to war with a country, then we should be going to war with Pakistan as well. Oddly enough, we support Pakistan, and despite our proclamation of being the defender of democracy, we also support its dictator, Pervez Musharraf. Despite your claims to the contrary, there is evidence that the Iranians are helping the US-Iraqi forces to stabilize Iraq (http://www.usatoday.com...). Here are two of your claims from the first round: "President Ahmadinejad isn't looking for war" "If he had the chance to attack them, he would". Which one is it? It's hard to argue against someone who makes arguments for both sides of an issue. So here are your points for why we should go to war "1) Iranian government is helping terrorsist 2) nuclear bombs 3) Their tests on us" 1.As of yet you've shown no evidence that the Iranian government is currently active in supporting terrorist activities. 2.The National Intelligence Estimate said that the Iranian government ceased their weapons program years ago. Mohamed ElBaradei, the director general of the International Atomic Agency said late last year after a tour of Iranian facilities that Iran posed "no clear and present danger" to anyone (http://www.newsweek.com...). Having said that, what right do we have to invade a sovereign nation over its nuclear weapons program? Iran is surrounded by nations such as Israel, India, China, and Pakistan who all have nuclear weapons. It seems fairly rational for Iran to want the safegurd of nuclear weapons as a buffer. After all, no two nations with nuclear weapons have ever gone to war with one another. In fact, we're the only nation that's ever even used a nuclear weapon! Who are we to claim some sort of moral high ground regarding Iranian proliferation? Your argument here is based entirely on theoretical statements and non sequiturs. 3.Really? You want to invade a sovereign nation of over 70 million people over these incidents? The only one you mentioned that involved the United States was the boat incident a few weeks ago. Even our own navy has said this appears to have actually been a hoax by a known radio heckler in the region known as "Filipino Monkey" (http://www.navytimes.com...). The thought of going to war over this event is honestly completely laughable. Okay, now for my reasons why we shouldn't go to war with Iran: 1.Our troops are already stretched too thin 2.We aren't capable of handling the aftermath of a military invasion of Iran 3.Our image in the Middle East is tarnished enough as it is, we need to be repairing it, not hurting it even further 4.Iran could be a huge ally in the war on terrorism and in Iraq if we chose to engage them 5.Ahmadinejad is a democratically elected head of state, and we have no right to depose him 6.The people of Iran are already fed up with Ahmadinejad's administration and invading would give him the ability to rally their support 7.Iran doesn't pose a threat to our security Now for my explanations: 1.As of December 2007, we have nearly 200,000 troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. The US military has already eased its recruiting standards in order to fill its ranks, allowing high school dropouts, older adults, and even criminals to enlist in the armed forces. It is also increasing tours of duty for already enlisted soldiers. An invasion of a nation such as Iran would require significantly more personnel than did the invasion of Iraq. Iran is larger, more populous, and has a rougher terrain than its neighbor to the west. 2.As we have seen in Iraq, the aftermath of an invasion creates havoc. This means even more troops and even more money. The war in Iraq has already cost us almost half a trillion dollars (http://www.nationalpriorities.org...), and that's in a nation where we were supposed to be greeted as liberators. The US has greater problems at home, not the least of which is a slipping economy. Spending another trillion dollars fighting an unnecessary war isn't going to help. Also, as I previously alluded to, Iran is a very mountainous country, something which posed problems for us in Afghanistan. Mountains provide ample hiding places for insurgents and terrorists who know the terrain much better than we do. Finally, we must consider the human costs of war. Since the invasion, somewhere between 175,000 and 600,000 Iraqi civilians have been killed. Are you really prepared to kill more innocent people for such an uncertain cause? 3.One of the main problems in the war on terrorism is the fact that many people in the Middle East have a very negative image of the US. This negative perception turns into a hatred for some and is at the roots of terrorism itself. Invading one of the most influential nations in the Arab world isn't going to gain us any favor with anyone except Israel. 4.An article in the Yale Global by Professor Fawaz A. Gerges puts it best: "Iran and Syria exercise more influence inside Iraq than pro-Western Arab states. Yet the Bush administration rejects talks with Iraq's powerful neighbors, Iran and Syria, saying the two countries support terrorism. "Do we have so little confidence in the diplomats of the United States that we're not willing to let them talk with somebody we disagree with?" Lee Hamilton, the Democratic co-chair of the Iraq Study Group, asked the House Foreign Affairs Committee Friday." (http://yaleglobal.yale.edu...) The Middle East is the main front in the war on terrorism, and yet we have very few allies there. If we truly intend to win this "war", then we must have support from the nations in which these terrorists operate. 5.We claim to be "promoters of democracy", and Iran is one of the few Middle Eastern countries which actually has some semblance of it. If we invade Iran because we don't like its leadership, we are sending a message to the world that we only want you to have democracy if you're going to elect someone we agree with. 6.There is a large feeling of discontent among the Iranian people over President Ahamdinejad's inability to bring the country into the 21st century. The Iranian people want to be modern, want to be successful, and want to be part of the global community, just like any other country. Nobel laureate and Iranian dissident Shirin Ebadi has said that "any attack on Iran will be good for the government and will actually damage the revolutionary movement." Invading a sovereign nation rarely ever gains you any favor with its citizens. Let's not be foolish enough to believe again that American bombs are going to be welcomed with flowers and confetti. A military strike would unite the Iranian people against the US, forcing them to put aside what differences they may have with the current government. 7.Almost no one alleges that Iran poses a threat of any serious nature to the United States, there are no allegations that an Iranian fleet is going to seize Boston Harbor, or that Iranian paratroopers are going to descend upon New York City. Like I said before, the IAEA chief has said that Iran isn't a threat, ant the NIE backed him up. So why should we invade them again? 60% of its budget comes from oil sales, and any conflict with the US would inevitably bankrupt its government. What makes you think that they desire any type of military engagement with us? There you have it, I welcome your responses.