The current tension between Iran and America is one reminiscent of the Cold War: uncertainty, fear, and insecurity has again inspired the question "if Iran attained nuclear weapons, what would we do?" .

             .

             President Barack Obama has stated that if Iran should attain nuclear statehood, military action would be taken. From hindsight this seems like a reasonable response; no one wants a nuclear Iran, especially with the past anti-Israel comments made by Ahmadinejad. Yet, in the end one must realize and ultimately accept that if Iran did obtain nuclear weapons we, as in the world, have no idea what Iran would do. There is no evidence other than rhetoric spewed by a leader who, in the end, had to explain his "Israel wiped off the map"" comment by the request of Ayatollah that Iran would ever attack Israel, especially with nuclear force. There is also no hard evidence that a nuclear Iran would pose actual danger to America's national security. While a nuclear Iran may hinder America's interest abroad in the Middle Eastern region, there is no firm proof of any Iranian plan to attack America. Nevertheless, America has once again raised the question of the first strike, a strategy better known as preventive war. .

             In this paper, using Michael Waltzer's "Just and Unjust Wars" and other sources, I am going to critique America's use of preventive war as a viable and ethical strategy to coerce and deter Iran's alleged nuclear program and how throughout the centuries preventive war has proved to do more evil and than good.

             Preventive war for the past ten years of America's military strategy has been at the forefront of our thinking when it comes to securing our national security in the international system. The invasion of Iraq based on the idea that Saddam Hussien was harboring Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD's) was one of the biggest farces in America's history of military strategy.