Summer Savings! Get unlimited digital access for 13 weeks for $13.
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
  • Iran deal threatens Israel

    Iran deal threatens Israel

    It is sad to see The Baltimore Sun's editorial board acknowledge its support for this awful deal with Iran ("A 'good enough' deal," July 27). War will not be the result if the deal is not signed, but at least the sanctions would still be in place. The only countries benefiting from this deal will...

  • Iran deal falls woefully short

    Iran deal falls woefully short

    "Good enough" is not an acceptable alternative when it comes to making a nuclear deal with Iran, a government that consistently urges for "death to America and Israel" ("A 'good enough' deal," July 27). There are far too many questions left in this deal for Congress to accept it at this point in...

  • Iran deal a 'Pandora's Box'

    Iran deal a 'Pandora's Box'

    If we believe that Iran will cease its nuclear program and its support for international terrorism after the agreement is signed, we are living in a fool's paradise ("Sen. Ben Cardin says U.S. negotiators got 'awful lot' in Iran deal," July 23). The argument that Iran will no longer develop nuclear...

  • Wishful thinking about the U.S. deal with Iran

    Wishful thinking about the U.S. deal with Iran

    Regarding Ray McGovern's commentary "Is the 'military option' on Iran off the table?" (July 20), much as we'd like to believe this is a good deal for the U.S., the facts suggest otherwise.

  • Iran deal won't lead to a safer world

    Iran deal won't lead to a safer world

    In 1938, the prime ministers of the United Kingdom and France signed a agreement called the Munich Pact with Adolph Hitler. This act effectively sealed the fate of portions of Czechoslovakia.

  • Don't trust Iran deal

    Don't trust Iran deal

    In response to KAL's cartoon of July 19 depicting Republican hawks not trusting a peace dove brought by President Barack Obama under the guise of the Iran Nuke Deal, I have a two word response: Neville Chamberlain.