War With Iran

Frist, the definition of war which I am referring to is as follows (I apologize for not making it clearer):Merriam-Webster defines war as "a state of hostility, conflict, or antagonism" [1]To justify my use of the words "war" and "invasion" in conjunction, I'll point out that most wars warrant an invasion of one country by another.Iranian "Aggressiveness"The main reason that Iran has shown any verbal aggressiveness toward America and the West is because of the actions which those countries have taken against Iran in the past. An example of this would be the coup d'etat of 1953. This effort was carried out by the American CIA along with British groups. It was codenamed Operation Ajax and was funded in part by the American government. The operation overthrew the Iranian government and installed a dictator who was sympathetic to America. In 1979, an American general was sent to Iran to instigate another coup, but it failed miserably and the Iran Hostage Crisis began. [2] Just a little history to explain the current situation.I believe your quotes, in full, look like this:"The western powers created the Zionist regime in order to expand their control of the area. This regime massacres Palestinians everyday, but since this regime is against nature, we will soon witness its disappearance and destruction." [3]"The Zionist regime is counterfeit and illegitimate and cannot survive... The big powers have created this fraud regime and allowed it to commit all kind of crimes to guarantee their interests." [4]"In spite of all the satanic schemes, with the help of God and the people's resistance, the new Middle East will turn into a region without the United States and the Zionist regime, and the arrogant powers will have no place in this Middle East." [5]These sound like words of a man who wishes for the disappearance of the Israeli state, but it does not in any way insinuate that Iran will be the one to cause that disappearance. As a matter of fact, Ahmadinejad has never directly stated that Iran itself will remove Israel with force.Nuclear WeaponsWhile it is true that Iran is not "hurting for energy," they get 99.7% of their total energy from fossil fuels. [6] That is a staggeringly large percentage of their energy production. If they were able to produce nuclear energy, they would be able to sell even more of their fossil fuels. They are currently using the majority of their fossil fuels on themselves and are still making a large revenue from selling them. It is feasible to imagine that Iran's pursuit of nuclear power is simply a way to make more money (which is always welcome in any country).Sadly, it is true that a large amount of their energy is wasted due to technical failures. However, nuclear power is known to be far more efficient than fossil fuels and would thus be the obvious alternative for a nation with access to uranium.As I've stated before, Iran has never pledged to destroy Israel. This is a common misconception among Americans and others in the West.As to the possibility of nuclear weapons, Iran has agreed to allow UN inspectors to search their main military site in Tehran. [7] If they had any nuclear weapon technology, they certainly would not allow inspectors into their military base. Any radiation from such technology would easily be picked up with a Geiger counter.Long Range CapabilityI found an article which highlights the testing of long range missiles by Iran but I could not find the range of said missiles. [8] Unfortunately, your source for this subject would not open. I trust it was reliable though.In fact, it is believed that Israel possesses between 100-200 nuclear weapons. They are also upgrading their arsenal so that their missiles are now trans-continental (5000 miles). [9] Why do they need such high-range missiles?War Without InvasionWar without invasion is, by definition, not possible unless it is done through missiles.Merriam-Webster defines invasion as "an act of invading" [10]It defines invading as "to enter for conquest or plunder; to enroach upon" [11]Thus, the situation you described would be considered both an act of war and invasion.In conclusion, any invasion of or act of war against Iran would be completely unprovoked and unnecessary. The leader of Iran, Ahmadinejad, has expressed contempt for our ally Israel but has never directly stated that he would attack them. Pre-emptive stikes have been used before (most notably in Iraq) and ended with negative consequences. We should not engage in this type of attack again or else risk angering the Middle East further and creating an even clearer image of an America that is pro-war and aggressive.1- http://www.merriam-webster.com...2- http://www.youtube.com...;(Video)3- http://www.jihadwatch.org...4- http://www.jihadwatch.org...5- http://www.ynetnews.com...6- http://www.tradingeconomics.com...7- http://www.myfoxchicago.com...8- http://www.cbsnews.com...9- http://www.haaretz.com...10- http://www.merriam-webster.com...11- http://www.merriam-webster.com...