Become a digitalPLUS subscriber. 99¢ for 4 weeks.
News Opinion Readers Respond

With Iran, all U.S. options are difficult

The fast and loose talk being thrown around by the Israelis, the administration and the Romney camp about drawing lines in the sand for Iran to cross should be very worrisome to all Americans. All parties mentioned above share the imperative that Iran should not have a nuclear weapon, but getting there is the problem.

The Israelis and Mitt Romney embrace the line in the sand approach; if the line is crossed, a military attack will be imminent. The consequences of this approach can be very troubling. There is no doubt that if the attack is carried out, Hezbollah (a client of Iran in southern Lebanon) will rain down on Israel a hellfire of rockets not seen before in the region. The Palestinians on the West Bank and Gaza will join in the madness, and whatever strides that have been made toward peace will be long gone. Every American Embassy in the Middle East will be under siege. Oil will shoot to $300 a barrel. Gas in the U.S. may cost $8, maybe $10 a gallon. And this could very well be the best-case scenario.

The route desired by President Barack Obama is for continued diplomacy and sanctions. Not a guarantee by any stretch of the imagination. And if this fails, then we will have no choice but to take military action. But we should all recognize that we have been at war for over 10 years, and our all-volunteer military need some down time. Will there be a need for boots on the ground if Israel is in danger of collapse due to all the above? I'll let the reader answer that one. Consequences, yes, some very severe to all Americans, but are we prepared to accept them? No one said protecting our way of life would be easy, and it looks like one of those moments is almost upon us.

Robert M. McDonough, Columbia

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