Do you support or oppose the use of military threats and pressure by the US to get Iran to agree to its latest terms?

Support (39%) – "This is a regime with a long history of not dealing in good faith. Not to mention the long-running human rights abuses of its citizens. If pressure tactics get them to make and honor a deal that brings stability to the country and region, then do what it takes."

• "I support this. Iran has proven themselves to be unreliable and dangerous. Allowing them to build nuclear warheads would be dangerous for the whole world. The United States has an obligation to try to stop this from happening."

"We have tried nonviolent methods to stop the development of weapons that could harm the US and our allies. When peaceful methods don't work, you have 2 options - aggression or surrender. I can see Iran's position that they should have rights to pursue arms. But they aren't coming from a place of peace to get there. Their religious leadership is a no compromise and no tolerance establishment. You see that on the attacks against their own people who disagree."

Oppose (49%) – "Choosing violence to oppose a country's autonomy isn't going to solve anything, especially when the other country will probably respond with violence. At that point violence escalates quickly and thousands of people get hurt instead of figuring out a way to operate differently. Also, the US doesn't police the world, no matter how much our military-industrial complex wants to."

• "It's grimly ironic that our government criticizes Iran's treatment of their protesters while murdering our own. Intervening in Iran also conflicts with the America First platform Trump's supporters voted for, and given that we continue to alienate our international allies, risks overstretching the military should we be drawn into a deeper conflict."

"We had a deal with Iran and they were following it. Trump tore up the deal and started sabre rattling because his brain is shrinking and no one will say no to him. Just as with Greenland, he's going to embarrass us on the international stage and then maybe agree to the deal we already had, and call it a win."

• "Iran and Russia are allies. Threatening Iran is a direct provocation of Russia. This does not help the Ukraine / Russia situation, which we are supposedly attempting to settle. Gunboat diplomacy is NOT DIPLOMACY. It is a bluff. After someone calls your bluff - what then?"

Unsure/other (12%) – "In the case of countries like Iran, I do think it's prudent to act first, and to act firmly. Military pressure is necessarily a part of that – there is absolutely no reason why Iran has a reason to listen to us outside of our military might and international presence/influence. To what extend military threats and pressure should be used and how often is the tricky part, because I also think it's a delicate balance that can easily be overstepped. What are the potential downsides and consequences of threatening another country? I don't know for sure, and I'm not saying risks aren't always worth it, but I am saying those risks need to be considered carefully and prepared for."