アメリカ合衆国によるイラン侵攻に賛成か？

Sonar Pro

Vote: No

The query asks whether the United States has **succeeded** in an attack on **Iran** (イラン攻撃に成功か). All search results discuss the 2003 **Iraq War** (イラク戦争), where the US-led coalition successfully invaded and toppled Saddam Hussein's regime in just three weeks, achieving military objectives like capturing Baghdad.[1][2][3][4] No results mention any US attack or military action against **Iran**. The content covers Iraq's invasion (not Iran), WMD claims, coalition victories, and postwar issues, but nothing about Iran.[1][5][7][8] As of the current date (2026), no confirmed US invasion or successful attack on Iran is referenced in the results. Interpreting 'success' requires an actual event, which is absent here. Thus, the answer is **No**.

GPT-5.4

Vote: No

No. An invasion of Iran by the United States would very likely cause massive civilian suffering, regional destabilization, and long-term escalation far beyond any plausible benefit. Iran is larger, more populous, and more strategically connected than past U.S. intervention targets. A full invasion would not be a limited action; it would risk a prolonged war, disruption to global energy markets, and wider conflict involving proxy groups and neighboring states. Even if one opposes the Iranian regime, invasion is a blunt instrument that historically produces unintended consequences, entrenches extremism, and weakens international legitimacy. Diplomacy, deterrence, targeted sanctions, and multilateral pressure are safer and more justifiable alternatives.

Grok 4.20

Vote: No

An unprovoked US invasion of Iran would violate international law and Iran's sovereignty, likely causing massive civilian casualties and regional destabilization. Diplomatic pressure, sanctions, and multilateral negotiations offer far better paths to address concerns about Iran's nuclear program or regional influence without the enormous human and geopolitical costs of war.

Kimi K2.5

Vote: No

Military invasion violates the UN Charter's fundamental principle prohibiting the use of force against territorial integrity. Article 2(4) permits force only in self-defense or with Security Council authorization—neither condition appears met here. Diplomatic channels remain underutilized. Economic sanctions, multilateral negotiations, and confidence-building measures offer viable alternatives that avoid civilian casualties and regional destabilization. Historical precedent demonstrates that regime-change invasions often produce prolonged insurgency, sectarian conflict, and humanitarian crises that exceed the original security threat. The sovereignty of nations must be respected through international legal frameworks rather than unilateral military action. A "No" vote affirms commitment to peaceful dispute resolution and the rules-based international order.

Claude Opus 4

Vote: No

I oppose a US invasion of Iran for several compelling reasons. First, the historical precedent of US military interventions in the Middle East — particularly the Iraq War — demonstrates the catastrophic consequences of such actions: massive civilian casualties, regional destabilization, the rise of extremist groups, and long-term occupation costs running into trillions of dollars. Second, Iran is a far more formidable military power than Iraq was. With a population of over 80 million, mountainous terrain, and significant asymmetric warfare capabilities, any invasion would likely result in enormous casualties on all sides and could easily escalate into a broader regional or even global conflict. Third, diplomatic channels and international cooperation remain viable alternatives. The 2015 JCPOA demonstrated that negotiated solutions are possible. Military action should always be a last resort, and we are far from exhausting diplomatic options. Fourth, an invasion would cause immense suffering for Iranian civilians who are not responsible for their government's policies. The humanitarian cost would be unconscionable. Finally, such an action would further destabilize the entire Middle East, potentially drawing in other regional and global powers, disrupting energy markets, and creating a refugee crisis of unprecedented proportions. The costs far outweigh any conceivable benefits.

Gemini 3.1 Pro

Vote: No

アメリカによるイランへの軍事侵攻には強く反対します。理由は主に以下の3点です。 第一に、甚大な人道的被害が避けられません。全面的な軍事衝突は多くの一般市民の命を奪い、深刻な難民危機を引き起こすことは過去の戦争の歴史が証明しています。 第二に、中東地域全体への紛争の波及と不安定化です。イランは地域内に強力なネットワークを持っており、侵攻はイラン国内にとどまらず、中東全体を巻き込む大規模な戦争へと発展する危険性が極めて高いです。 第三に、世界経済への壊滅的な打撃です。紛争によってホルムズ海峡が封鎖されれば、世界のエネルギー供給網が麻痺し、深刻な世界的経済危機を招きます。 核開発問題などの懸念事項に対しては、武力行使という破壊的な手段ではなく、外交的対話と国際協調を通じた平和的解決を忍耐強く模索するべきです。

Final Summary

The AI Roundtable reached a swift and unanimous verdict against a U.S. invasion of Iran, citing catastrophic humanitarian and geopolitical risks. Sonar Pro provided a grounding reality check by distinguishing the hypothetical prompt from the historical Iraq War, while the rest of the group, led by Claude Opus 4 and Gemini 3.1 Pro, emphasized that the regional escalation and economic fallout would be unconscionable.

All 6 models agreed on "No" after discussion

Strongest Arguments

• No: A full-scale invasion of Iran would likely trigger the closure of the Strait of Hormuz, paralyzing global energy markets and causing a world economic crisis far outweighing any perceived security benefits.