Try digitalPLUS for 10 days for only $0.99

Readers Respond

News Opinion Readers Respond

Does Iran want a war?

With American officials all but falling over themselves in pleading with Israel not to attack Iran, the question arises: What would be worse for the region, the prospect of Iran acquiring nuclear weapons capability, or an Israeli military strike to prevent that ("Iran threat appears to add crack in U.S.-Israel bond," Feb. 22)? While the first situation might conceivably lead to war — if the Iranian leadership were insane or suicidal, which they're not — the second option will definitely initiate a military chain reaction involving surrounding countries and the U.S. with unforeseen and devastating consequences.

While its pretty clear that the U.S. is trying to placate Israel with escalating sanctions, it's also clear that sanctions are playing into the hands of Iranian hard-liners by demonstrating a need for nuclear weapons as a bulwark against foreign interference. Since the sanctions won't achieve their ostensible objective and since their failure will then likely serve as a pretext for war, this raises other questions: Is this outcome not the unstated plan? Or have American policy makers become so inured to the use of military power that we've lost our ability to prevent a catastrophe?

John G. Bailey, Edgemere

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

46°