Please help revise !! thank u sooo much!!
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.
As a result, the United States must use patient diplomacy in dealing with Iran’s nuclear program. According to Hemmer, the United States must set in place policy alternatives than preventive military action or regime changes. Moreover, a better policy must include deterrence, containment and engagement of Iran’s government nuclear weapons program. The United States must engage in policy that will discourage Iran from not using its nuclear weapons under any circumstances. In fact, the United States main anxiety is the thought that Iran’s nuclear weapons can be used against the United States or its allies. Nuclear deterrence is a strategy that can eliminate the threat of nuclear retaliation against the United States. The threat of obliteration as a result of American retaliation is a powerful deterrent.
The power of nuclear deterrence lies in the fact that the costs of a nuclear exchange are devastating. Thus, in addition, this suggest that to a certain level Iran’s leaders are rational enough to understand that any use of nuclear weapons against U.S or its allies would result in an overwhelming and unacceptable response in the global community. Iranian leader’s use of deterrence demonstrates a realist notion among Iran leaders in its actions to protect national interests. For example, Iran supported the American intervention in Afghanistan allowing the United States the use of airfields and ports. Thus, Iran engaged in foreign policy steering away from the religious ideologies and more towards national interest. Therefore Iranian leaders demonstrate sufficient rationality to understand the use of nuclear weapons against America would not be in their national interests.
Moreover, the United States strategy toward a nuclear Iran should be a policy of containment. Containment will prevent Iran from using its nuclear status to increase its authority in the region. It is important for the United States to implement a containment policy rather than military action and not allow Iran’s nuclear capability to coerce diplomacy against the United States or allies. Within the region Iran’s decision making lies in its national security and the requirement of continuing its status quo of a historical superpower in the Middle East.
Still, rather than the United States isolating Iran from the global economy it must take the initiative to engage Iran in the global market. Hemmer suggests that this can establish a direct diplomatic relation and persuade Iran’s involvement in the global economy. Therefore the United States should take the initiative to engage Iran in international relations, while improving United States long term national security. Economic sanctions against Iran can be useful in dissuading the development of nuclear weapons, but this will not move forward US foreign policy interests.
Furthermore, the United States strategy toward a nuclear armed Iran should focus on convincing Iran’s neighbors that the American commitment to the security remains strong. The American strategy regarding regional allies must focus on assuring individual state that as long as Iran is contained, the United States will not take any military action. It is clear that America’s strategy toward a nuclear armed Iran should be the development of a security style based on deterrence and containment. Instead, of the United States perusing sanctions against Iran and isolating it from the global market , the strategy of deterrence, containment, engagement, and reassurance provides the structure to achieve America’s long term regional objectives. This will minimizes disruptions to the international oil flow, Iran’s regional authority, stabilizing US efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq, and countering global war on terror.
Your essay is well written. Here are some grammatical comments.
There should be no comma after "instead" in a sentence of the past paragrpah.
There is a verb conjugation error in the last sentence. It should begin "This will minimize..."
"Exclaims" is a poor word choice following "Hemmer". "Maintains" would be better.
The phrase, "Within the region." which opens a sentence, should be followed by a comma.
The phrase " to a certain level " should be separated by commas.
There is a disastrous double negative in this sentence: "The United States must engage in policy that will discourage Iran from not using its nuclear weapons under any circumstances".
The word "indocrinating" does not make sense in the sentence
"thus further indoctrinating Anti-American influence." Perhaps you mean "strengthening"
Please find below the revised version of your text:
Direct military action against Iran would only escalate tensions in the Middle East, particularly among Islamic governed countries. This would not only harm America's interests in the fight against terrorism, but also increase the risk of terrorist attacks against the United States and its allies. Moreover, military action would likely fuel support for the current regime in Iran, further strengthening anti-American sentiment.
Furthermore, Iraq and Afghanistan are significant priorities for the United States. Launching a military strike to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons would likely lead to retaliatory actions from Iran, creating obstacles and challenges for ongoing nation-building efforts in both countries. The resources necessary for regime change in Iran are much higher than in Iraq, and the military action required would be much more dangerous.
In fact, there is a high risk that a military approach against the Iranian regime could trigger the use of nuclear weapons by Iran as a means of self-defense. The international community generally agrees that once a government possesses nuclear weapons, regime change by an external actor is no longer a viable option. This makes the risk of military action against Iran too high, as it could lead to catastrophic consequences.
Therefore, a more effective approach for the United States would be to pursue patient diplomacy in dealing with Iran's nuclear program. This would involve implementing policies that focus on deterrence, containment, and engagement with Iran's government regarding their nuclear weapons program. The United States should aim to discourage Iran from using their nuclear weapons under any circumstances, as the main concern is the potential use of these weapons against the United States or its allies.
Nuclear deterrence is a powerful strategy that can eliminate the threat of nuclear retaliation against the United States. The potential consequences of a nuclear exchange are devastating, and Iran's leaders are rational enough to understand that any use of nuclear weapons against the United States or its allies would result in an overwhelming and unacceptable response. This demonstrates that Iran's leaders prioritize national interests over religious ideologies, as evident from their support for the American intervention in Afghanistan.
Additionally, the United States should adopt a policy of containment towards a nuclear Iran. This means preventing Iran from using its nuclear status to exert influence in the region. Instead of isolating Iran, the United States should engage with them in the global market and establish diplomatic relations. Encouraging Iran's involvement in the global economy can improve long-term national security and minimize disruptions to international oil flow, while ensuring Iran's regional authority remains contained.
Moreover, it is crucial for the United States to reassure Iran's neighbors that their commitment to regional security remains strong. The strategy should focus on assuring individual states that as long as Iran is contained, military action will not be pursued. By adopting a comprehensive strategy that includes deterrence, containment, engagement, and reassurance, the United States can achieve its long-term regional objectives while countering the global war on terror.
Overall, the revised text highlights the importance of diplomatic efforts, deterrence, containment, engagement, and reassurance in dealing with Iran's nuclear program. It emphasizes the need to avoid direct military action and instead focus on strategies that promote stability, security, and long-term objectives in the region.