Yes, a<~~delete "a" patient diplomacy is the best approach to Iran’s nuclear program. Professor Christopher Hemmer from the Department of International Security Studies at Maxwell Air Force Base, Montgomery, Alabama<~~add comma argues that although Iran’s nuclear program will cause challenges for the United States, they can be met through active strategy of deterrence, containment, and engagement. The United States<~~add apostrophe after the "s" since it's plural possessive interests in Iran are too high and should not be threaten<~~verb form; needs -ed by forcing Iran through military action to abandon the development of nuclear weapons.
Oil,<~~delete comma in the Persian Gulf is a major interest for The United States. Maintaining the oil flow into America is essentially important<~~delete "essentially" or keep "essential" and delete "important" (redundancy) due to our dependency of<~~use "on" not "of" it. The United States cannot jeopardize<~~wrong word; use "allow" the possibility of creating a hostile relationship with Iran. A military hit<~~"hit" is slang; what's a more formal word? forcing Iran to abandon nuclear weapons will only minimize the oil production coming into America and at the same time affect the overall market. Undoubtedly, Iran does rely heavily on the profits from oil exports and therefore will not stop or hold back petroleum from global markets, but they can<~~add comma however, threaten to disrupt the flow of traffic or raise the price of oil. This will ultimately affect the United States<~~possessive economy, and essentially<~~delete "essentially" and the comma after "economy" the global market.
Work on commas (when to use them and when NOT to use them), apostrophes, and word choice:
Direct military action against Iran would only agitate the Middle East particularly Islamic governed countries. Disturbing this region would damage America’s interest towards the fight against terrorism. Consequently, increasing the threat of terrorist’s attacks against the United States and its allies. Military action would also encourage movements of support and unity for the current regime in Iran, thus further indoctrinating Anti-American influence.
In addition, Iraq and Afghanistan are important interests to the United States. Preventing Iran from a nuclear program through military force would encourage Iran, to retaliate by making things difficult for the United States. The current attempt of nation building in both countries cannot be undermined through Iran creating challenges to block U.S. efforts. The United States cannot afford a regime change in Iran. Hence, its current resources are allocated in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Nevertheless, the United States efforts should not include eliminating Iran’s regime. Not because the United State lacks the capability of eliminating a regime like in Iraq, but rather the needed resources to do so are much higher. Thus, Hemmer explains that Iran is much larger and in some way a more nationalistic nation than Iraq. An obligation like that goes beyond America’s resources. Eliminating the regime is not the challenge. However, installing a new government is an expensive test. In addition, the United States military action for regime change is extremely more dangerous in Iran than in Iraq.
Indeed, a military approach against the regime can in fact induce Iran to use its nuclear weapons, against the United States in order to defend itself from regime overthrow. Even so, Hemmer exclaims that it is now common within the international community that once a government acquires nuclear weapons, regime change by an external actor is no longer an option. Hence, the risk is too high. Iran then would even feel justified as regards to its last hope for survival under United States invasion