The idea that the Bush administration is seriously considering military action in Iran is frightening ["Taking Aim at Iran," September 24].
War in Iran is not inevitable, especially when only weak economic sanctions have been levied and there has been "no breakthrough" on bilateral talks. There are still many diplomatic alternatives to military airstrikes. Would a pre-emptive invasion of Iran quell the burgeoning threat, or would it only worsen the problem and perpetuate extreme anti-American sentiment? The answer is obvious, and Americans cannot afford to fall for the same ruse again.
When a country has the ability to enrich uranium for nuclear power, it is only a matter of time until it can also create nuclear weapons. If we allow Iran to continue without policing its activities, it will not be long until it conducts pre-emptive strikes on American soil. We cannot allow the United Nations to control this. We need to deal with this problem before it escalates.
Will an attack on Iran compel the Iranians to rise up against the mullahs? It will more likely have the opposite effect. And what would be the reaction in Iraq, a country that is 60 percent Shiite? What would happen to the marginal progress that has been made and the soldiers who have sacrificed so much to attain it? The more that I hear from the scholars at the American Enterprise Institute, the more I realize how we got into our present quagmire, and the more certain it seems there will be a new foreign policy disaster before the next president is sworn in.
So the same administration that insisted there was evidence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq now wants us to believe that it has found evidence of Iranian weaponry in Iraq? Meanwhile, this country is going broke, the Constitution seems to be an annoyance, and my sons will be drafted to fight an Orwellian battle. Please bring back true conservatism, not neoconservative rhetoric.
Hoffman Estates, Ill.