By analyzing Iran through a consequentialist, or ends-based scope, it could be argued that the United States should take direct action in the area to quell any nuclear arms program Iran could be fostering. From this perspective, it is moral and okay to risk lives in the short term in an effort to, in the long term, save millions of people, in many parts of the world, from the dangers that could result from the use of nuclear weapons. The problem with an ends-based perspective is that ends are often difficult to predict. Analysts tend to look at short-term consequences rather than long-term ones. In this case, it is hard to predict how long we would have to be in Iran/ how many lives we would kill in order to oust their nuclear arms program. The political aftermath would, although hard to predict, be nasty and complicated, especially considering the United States’ current reputation and position in the Middle East as a whole.
Conversely, a deontologist, who emphasizes rules-based action, could argue that it is not moral to invade or go to war with Iran. War kills people and a deontologist could argue that the United States is already using up human lives in Afghanistan and Iraq, not to mention the killing of civilians in both these countries. Rules-based action is less conscious of an ends. Therefore, today, the United States is taking more of a deontological approach to Iran by holding back on an invasion, and is simply hoping that for now Iran doesn’t have the strength or enough resources to actually use their nuclear weapons. At the moment, no action is more morally sound than intervention. Some people are frustrated, however, because they view Iran as a serious threat and do not believe the United States is taking a strong enough stance on Iran’s nuclear power. However, the United States government is making a more rational decision by not taking aggressive action in Iran right now.
