Open thread for night owls: How far should doing 'what we must' go to stop Iran from getting a nuke?

At the United Nations Tuesday, President Barack Obama gave a wide-ranging speech that struck many of the right notes. He gave a fitting eulogy to Chris Stevens, the American ambassador to Libya who was killed in an attack that may have been spawned by the North African Al Qaeda franchise.

Despite the many unsolved and unsettling issues raised by the Arab Spring, including the potential for extremists coming to power democratically, Obama praised it and reiterated U.S. support for the freedom-tied reforms that so many of its initiators had sought in toppling brutal dictatorships. He decried intolerance. He delivered strong support for our free-speech laws even while excoriating the offensive, anti-Muslim video that helped spark the protest which may have served as cover for the attack and killings at the consulate in Benghazi.

Over and over again, Obama stressed the need for solving issues through diplomacy and he repeatedly deplored the resort to violence.

Advanced uranium enrichment centrifuges
 at Natanz, Iran's main enrichment site. He spoke in favor of a diplomatic resolution, too, when it came to the question of Iran's nuclear program. There is still time, he said, to solve the differences between Iran and the nations that have imposed ever-tighter sanctions on the regime in Tehran because of the view that it seeks to build nuclear weapons (or at least develop the capacity to build them on short notice). But he added a new phrase to previous ones about every option being "on the table" and "I don't bluff." The new phrase was "will do what we must" to prevent an Iranian Bomb:

Let me be clear: America wants to resolve this issue through diplomacy, and we believe that there is still time and space to do so. But that time is not unlimited. We respect the right of nations to access peaceful nuclear power, but one of the purposes of the United Nations is to see that we harness that power for peace. Make no mistake: a nuclear-armed Iran is not a challenge that can be contained. It would threaten the elimination of Israel, the security of Gulf nations, and the stability of the global economy. It risks triggering a nuclear-arms race in the region, and the unraveling of the non-proliferation treaty. That is why a coalition of countries is holding the Iranian government accountable. And that is why the United States will do what we must to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon.

Only a subtle difference perhaps, lateral rather than escalatory, but the change in language underscores the implicit military threat that's been in place since the Bush administration.

The argument over whether Iran's anti-semitic, authoritarian regime is actually seeking to build a nuclear weapon need not be repeated here. Let's just say Iran's intentions and capabilities in this regard are disputed. For the purposes of this discussion, the issue is what, if anything, should the United States do, beyond diplomacy, to direct Iran away from building a Bomb if that is its intent? In other words, what is acceptable as part of "will do what we must"?

As tensions once again soar over the matter, this is not an idle question. Would Americans'would liberals and progressives'support a war, even one of short duration, to stop Iran? We already know what Republicans say on the matter; they've been chanting bomb-bomb-bomb Iran for ages. In their view, talk is for wusses. No doubt, Rep. Allen West would like to send the American Bald Eagle as the "Angel of Death" after them.

Democrats have favored negotiations. But most of them, including the president, have backed their stance with veiled or overt threats of military attacks if Tehran does not bend. Only a handful in Congress have said or hinted that there should be no preventive war against Iran should negotiations fail to resolve the matter.

But what of the American people?

A recent YouGov poll found that a quarter of Americans would approve the use of nuclear weapons to stop a terrorist attack on the United States. That's hardly a surprise. Polls show similar or higher levels of support for torture for the same purpose.

But what would the majority of Americans support? Where, for instance, is their "red line" when it comes to civilian fatalities inflicted by the U.S. or a U.S.-backed Israel attack on Iran? 1000? 100,000? What would you support? Do you think Obama is correct in saying that a nuclear-armed Iran is unacceptable? Or do you think one more nuclear nation won't make a difference? That's the subject of tonight's poll.

High Impact Posts. Top Comments.