Your editorial “Green light to bomb Iran” (Opinion, Tuesday) argued, “It’s a shame the United States once again is relying on Israel to be the chief agent for nuclear counterproliferation in the Middle East.” But U.S. interference in Iran would be insignificant in disrupting the Iranian nuclear program in the long term. Any military action would justify Iran’s desire to become a nuclear power.
Military strikes cannot eliminate Iran’s potential capacity to develop a nuclear weapon. The most optimistic predictions forecast at most a three-year delay. To effectively destroy Iran’s nuclear program, we would have to engage in another guerrilla war, try “nation-building” again or install a leader — as we did with the shah in 1953. These policies ultimately would fail and would only validate Tehran’s grounds for having a nuclear deterrent.
Instead of nuking a bridge we’ve already torched, we should strengthen our deterrents, pursue a diplomatic means of ending Iran’s nuclear program and leave any potential military action to states in the region.
KEVIN MEERS
Washington
By Julia A. Seymour - The Washington Times
By Peter Vincent Pry - The Washington Times
By Emily Miller - The Washington Times
By H. Leighton Steward
Fantasy replaces reality in Obama's green economy
