Among the bevy of issues being discussed in the presidential election, the question of what to do with a nuclear Iran brings perhaps the most anxiety.

While the financial crisis may put a little knot in all of our stomachs, the unreliability of Social Security looms over our futures and the rising cost of oil lightens almost everyone’s wallets, the unwieldiness and immediacy of a nuclear Iran appears to threaten Main Street — not just in the figurative sense.

As intimidating as the threat may be, no military solution to Iran’s nuclear ambitions is a good one. Rather, a foreign policy centered on diplomacy that takes into account the underpinning of Iran’s nuclear aspirations will best prevent an arms race in the the Middle East, a lending of the technology to insurgent factions, or military aggression by Israel against Iran’s threat to their nuclear hegemony in the region.

Sanctions and increased international pressure are extremely unlikely to deter Iran from developing nuclear technology. This is supported not only by the history of the international community’s struggle with Iran over its nuclear program, but by research that suggests that sanctions fail 86 percent of the time.

Moreover, imposing sanctions would run the possibility of further feeding the Iranian national pride that sees the development of nuclear technology as its right — especially in a situation where America’s nuclear hypocrisy is pronounced.

Doubts as to the deterability of a nuclear Iran, invoked by those who argue for preemptive military strikes against the country, are more founded in an inaccurate view of Iran as an illogical, fanatic member of the “Axis of Evil,” personified by the caricature-like Ahmadinejad, than in reality.

Ahmadinejad’s domestic popularity has plummeted and most Iranians are opposed to the development of nuclear weapons, against which Iran’s Ayatollah Ali Khamenei issued a fatwa.

Beyond Iran’s civilian population, there is nothing to suggest that Iran’s leaders operate outside the logic of MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction). Were Iran to launch a nuclear attack against Israel, or any state for that matter, they would assure their own annihilation.

The threat of Iran’s possible transference of nuclear technology to rogue, insurgent factions — against whom nations cannot retaliate against due to their statelessness — is often considered more likely. However, were the Iranian government to be found the supplier of weapons, it is sure they would be retaliated against. As political scientist Barry Posen said, “no country is likely to turn the means to its own annihilation over to an uncontrollable entity.”

The case against the likelihood of Iran stopping its nuclear program is strong. In light of this, McCain’s assertion that he would only participate in diplomatic talks after Iran had met preconditions — which would require the halting of their nuclear program — is self-defeating.

Moreover, this policy is supported by six recent secretaries of state, including Henry Kissinger himself, who said “I do not believe that we can make conditions for the opening of negotiations.”

Obama too, supports this policy.

It is critical for our next president to understand that encouraging diplomatic relations with potentially threatening countries does not weaken us while validating them. Is our power really so circumscribed? The extreme nature of the other possible answers to Iran’s nuclear aspirations, namely those military in nature, are only more reason to pursue diplomacy.

Reach columnist Sarah Gaither at opinion@dailyuw.com.