|
Is Iran a real direct threat to the US? Are Iranian military personal or Iranian
government sponsored paramilitary attacking US military personnel in Iraq? Does Iran really want to destroy
Israel? Will the US work cooperatively with Israel to eliminate Iran's nuclear capability? Will
the US military directly attack Iran in the next few months? Will or should the US invade Iran just like we
invaded Iraq?
These are tough questions. They are being tossed around in the media by political pundits
trying to guess what the Bush administration might do about Iran. Many in the media seem to treat this subject as
some form of political game rather than the very serious issue that it is. None of us know the absolute answers to any
of these questions.
It is highly likely that Iranian government funds are being used to support insurgents
or paramilitary units in Iraq. The chaos in Iraq provides an ideal opportunity for Iran to extend its influence in the
region as a player in the ultimate political outcome. The longer we stay in Iraq the longer our military will targets
for insurgents.
Iraq is not a direct threat to the US mainland but it is clearly a threat to our "interests"
around the world. Should we really have all of the "interests" that we have developed? I think not.
We must let other nations deal with their own issues and we must not try to be the policeman to the world. This is a
fundamental philosophical issue that the US must deal with successfully.
Does the US have the sole responsibility
for protecting middle east oil production from major damage due to wars between middle eastern states or non-governmental
groups? We should not protect those people that do not have common interests with us. It is
not acceptable for apparent economic cooperation to be compromised with financial support for terrorists.
We should not continue to operate our economy by importing a significant percentage of the world's oil exports.
We must change the fundamental role of oil imported from outside North America in our economy so we can reduce the importance
of our "interests" in the middle east.
People from all elements of the political spectrum want
the US to intervene in any situation around the world where there is injustice by political leaders against their own people.
We don't have the social responsibilty or moral authority to waste our resources trying to eliminate every "bad
guy" in the world. Sometimes when we eliminate a "bad guy", a worse "bad guy" takes over.
If a US citizen wants to intervene in a foreign civil war let them volunteer to fight in that conflict. Our military
must be used to protect our direct interests and those of allies committed to share a common view of the world with us.
Does Iran really want to destroy Israel or are the threats simply the empty talk of its leaders? If Israel believes
that Iran is a true threat to its national survival it will take appropriate action against Iran. The US should not
obstruct Israel if it elects to take such an action. The US controls the airspace over Iraq and the other geographical areas
between Iran and Israel. We need to let Israel complete any mission that it feels it must execute against
Iran. This is an issue of Israel's national survival. It is not an issue of the same magnitude for the
US.
The US should not be planning a first strike attack or invasion of Iran. We should continue to discuss middle
eastern issues with Iran from a diplomatic perspective. However, the Iranian government and all other governments
of the region and the people of Iran should be fully aware that the US has no problem with the concept of Iran's nuclear
sites or other significant military sites being destroyed by countries that feel threatened by Iran's military actions.
Iran's best course of action for the safety and security of its people is to work with the international community to
resolve common issues.
The Iran issues are tough issues. When a government has or will potentially have a
nuclear weapons capability the margin of error for those that are threatened is very small. Iran's government
may be sufficiently unstable that it will take actions that will end in its destruction. So be it. At some
point the world may have to understand again what it means for a nuclear weapon to be detonated in anger. The US must
do its best to convince the world not move in this direction, but we must be ready to respond to the situation should it occur.
Copyright 2007 by TPM
|
