Become a digitalPLUS subscriber. 99¢ for 4 weeks.
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 © 2014, The Baltimore Sun
Related Content
  • U.S. negotiations with Iran are a dangerous farce
    U.S. negotiations with Iran are a dangerous farce

    Having missed a July deadline for reaching an agreement with Iran over its nuclear program, the six world powers party to the talks -- the United States, Russia, China, France, United Kingdom and Germany -- have set November 24 as...

  • 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,...

  • Cardin must drop support for more Iran sanctions [Letter]
    Cardin must drop support for more Iran sanctions [Letter]

    Thank you for your support for continuing negotiations in your July 17th "Keep talking with Iran" editorial. U.S. and Iranian negotiators agreed to continue the talks through late November due to the progress they have made already toward peacefully resolving the standoff over Iran's nuclear...

  • Obama foolish to write Khamenei
    Obama foolish to write Khamenei

    To make matters regarding the negotiations with Iran over its nuclear and missile program even worse than what was described by Cal Thomas ("U.S. negotiations with Iran are a dangerous farce," Nov. 8), it is now known that President Barack Obama chose to contact Ayatollah Khamenei during that...

  • Iran talks peace while it builds its bomb
    Iran talks peace while it builds its bomb

    Unfortunately, the U.S. and Iran's decision to extend their nuclear talks with a new deadline of June, 2015, will only give Iran the opportunity to further its nuclear and ballistic missile programs unhindered ("Keep talking with Iran," Nov. 24).

  • Keep talking with Iran [Editorial]
    Keep talking with Iran [Editorial]

    Our view: With nuclear talks likely to be extended, it's crucial that Congress continue to give the administration room to negotiate

  • U.S. should end Iran sanctions [Letter]
    U.S. should end Iran sanctions [Letter]

    The recent commentary, "An enemy revisited" (July 13), correctly states that in witnessing the harsh realities "the United States would do well to reassess its view on Iran." In fact, we should have a dialogue and trade with Iran, a country that does not threaten U.S. national interests. The...

  • Syria and Iran are U.S. foreign policy disasters [Letter]
    Syria and Iran are U.S. foreign policy disasters [Letter]

    While reading the summary of key 2013 events, when I got to the description that "Syria blinked," I had to blink myself. I assume the writer meant "Syria winked." At least that's about as much attention as Bashar al-Assad paid to President Barack Obama's red lines — or maybe they were...

Comments
Loading