Military strike on Iran is foolish

Dear Editor,

The Washington Times editorial analysis of the INSS annual report (Disturbing analysis from Tel Aviv. Jan. 5, 2007) is far more disturbing than the INSS report itself.

The report does acknowledge that “Without military action, an Iranian nuclear bomb is only a matter of time.” But,it doesn’t say the other obvious fact -- that ‘military action against Iran won’t stop Iran from developing a nuclear bomb -- and will actually ensure Iran’s development of biological or chemical WMD -- to counter any future Western (or Eastern) military aggression.' Given the history of preemptive attacks by both the US and Israel, the Iranian desire for a credible nuclear deterrent capacity against western aggression is predictable.

The Times editorial staff would be wise to scan Paul Moorcraft’s “Foreign Policy in 2007” list of negative consequences from a military attack on Iran in yesterday’s Washington Times Oped pages. The conseqences of a military strike would be far more dangerous in the long and broader run of history.

The real threat Iran poses is genocidal, not nuclear in nature. The capacity for genocide is not limited to nuclear weapons. Dealing with Iran’s genocidal leaders by using international indictments for inciting genocide (particularly in the shadow of Saddam’s hanging for his genocidal acts) would be far more effective in achieving real security in the Middle East than unleashing yet another unnecessary war and occupation. And, if the INSS report doesn’t insist on an occupation of Iran to prevent any future nuclear or biological WMD development it isn’t worth the paper its written on. And, the same is true for the Washington Times if it doesn’t acknowledge that pre-emptive military force against sovereign nations is no longer a sane option.