Try digitalPLUS for 10 days for only $0.99

Opinion

News Opinion

Romney, Obama move U.S. toward war with Iran

In the race between President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, it is instructive to watch how each candidate for president behaves when the subject of Israel is mentioned. Every four years, citizens running for the highest office in this country feel duty-bound to show off their inexhaustible support for Israel, attempting to persuade the Israelis how, if elected, their approach toward Iran will increase pressure on the Islamic state. Mr. Romney stated on his recent visit to Israel that preventing Iran from obtaining nuclear capability should be America's "highest national security priority," stressing that "no option should be excluded" in the effort. Attempting to demonstrate a tougher stance than his adversary, he added that "we must not delude ourselves into thinking that containment is an option."

Voters need to recognize the faulty direction our country takes when dealing with the Middle East. Two candidates who claim they are fit to lead our country in a positive direction feel compelled to demonstrate to another country that we are willing to enter another war to make safe "one of the strongest countries in the world today." Attacking Iran is a horrendous idea that will result in consequences I do not think most citizens are prepared to face. It would potentially drown us in another conflict that could spread throughout that region, with Iran capable of attacking U.S bases there. A military strike against Iran's facilities cannot be limited to a single strike because its nuclear reactors are scattered throughout the country. If our goal is to halt Iran's enrichment program, engaging in diplomacy with Iran without appearing to be speaking on behalf of Israel will bear fruit for both countries.

The rhetoric and stance of both candidates toward the Middle East, particularly our favoritism for Israel in all cases and our aggressive behavior with ,Iran will continue to undermine stability in that region. Our nation cannot afford to fight another war against a country that does not present an immediate threat to our national security. I am amazed each presidential race to see candidates beat the drums of war toward Iran to prove which loves Israel more. This is exactly what Mr. Romney did when he visited Jerusalem, and President Obama will attempt to persuade the Israelis that his approach will be most effective. An attack sanctioned by any U.S. president can only be legitimate if the American people are willing to send their sons and daughters to fight that conflict.

In summary, voters must be observant regarding the behavior of candidates when the subject of Israel is mentioned. An attack against Iran is not in the interest of this country in any way because of the consequences that can unfold. Our country is being led in the wrong direction regarding its approach to the Middle East. A more balanced approach in our relations with the Arab world and Israel is needed if we ever wish to be perceived by people in the Middle East as a constructive player of peace.

Waseem Pharoan, Lutherville

Copyright © 2015, The Baltimore Sun
Related Content
  • Keep talking with Iran

    Keep talking with Iran

    The announcement today that the U.S. and Iran have agreed to extend talks over Tehran's disputed nuclear program is far short of what we might have hoped for. But the extension can't be counted as a failure either. If the goal is to keep up the pressure on Iran's leaders to reach a deal, keeping...

  • Five questions for Cardin

    Five questions for Cardin

    I'd like to ask five questions of Sen. Ben Cardin, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and others who support congressional review of any final U.S. nuclear agreement with Iran ("Cardin lands complicated deal with GOP, Obama on Iran," April 14):

  • A bad deal with Iran is worse than war

    A bad deal with Iran is worse than war

    Salah al-Mukhtar, a Jordanian columnist who writes for the Amman News, wrote the following reaction to the framework agreement reached between Iran and the major powers over its disputed nuclear program:

  • Iran can't be trusted to keep its word

    Iran can't be trusted to keep its word

    Your recent editorial on the U.S.-Iran nuclear talks is another indication that the liberal media does not understand that negotiating with Iran from the position of weakness is a disaster ("Negotiating with Iran," April 3).

  • Congress should not kill Iran deal

    Congress should not kill Iran deal

    South Carolina Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham got it right on Sunday when he said the framework accord between Iran and the major world powers on Tehran's disputed nuclear program is probably the best deal the Obama administration could have gotten. Of course, he didn't mean it as a compliment...

  • Congress should not dismiss Iran deal

    Congress should not dismiss Iran deal

    Before those opposed to the recent deal with Iran settle on their opposition ("Negotiating with Iran," April 5), I would hope they consider the following.

  • Iran never threatened to 'wipe Israel off the map'

    Iran never threatened to 'wipe Israel off the map'

    Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has said that Israel will not accept any agreement that allows a country that vows to annihilate his nation to develop nuclear weapons.

  • Iran has stuck by its side of the interim deal

    Iran has stuck by its side of the interim deal

    I have rarely read a letter with so many falsehoods as the individual who recently asserted that the Iranians "have lied about working toward a nuke, where their facilities are, how any places, people and pieces of equipment they have working on projects. More importantly, they declare peaceful...

Comments
Loading

81°