Don't attack Iran (response letters to NYT/IHT)

Regarding the article “There’s only one way to stop Iran” by Alan Kuperman (Views, Dec. 26): A military strike against Iran would reinforce the widespread perception of Western opportunism and double standards.

Nuclear powers bear most of the responsibility for the failures of the international nonproliferation regime. They can hardly claim the high moral ground or the political legitimacy to use military means to prevent others from developing nuclear capabilities.

There are several options between a half-hearted diplomatic initiative and the bombardment of a country.

What about a nuclear-free Middle East, with international guarantees of non-interference and regional security?

This may be difficult to achieve, but not more difficult than facing the consequences of yet another military intervention in the region. It would also be a first step toward President Barack Obama’s long-term goal of global nuclear disarmament.

Francesco Bastagli, Milan

Alan Kuperman’s article is part of a campaign against Iran much like the one against Iraq leading up to the invasion and the discovery that Saddam Hussein had no nuclear weapons. Mr. Kuperman misleads by reducing the issue to the simple alternative of airstrikes versus appeasement. He knows this is not 1938, and he is to be thanked for revealing his true intent: “The United States military can oust regimes in weeks if it wants to.” From this the reader can derive proper conclusions.

Fritz G. Renken, Sögel, Germany

New York Times Letters 

 Re “There’s Only One Way to Stop Iran” (Op-Ed, Dec. 24):

Alan J. Kuperman proposes the most dangerous idea of the coming year: bombing Iran’s nuclear sites, which some suspect are intended not only for nuclear power but also for nuclear weapons. Yet his own argument undermines the case for attacking Iran.

As Mr. Kuperman suggests, Iran’s demagogic president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, may have rejected President Obama’s compromise offer on nuclear fuel not because rejection helps him build a bomb but because a “tough” stand plays to Iranian national pride. Such pride goes far beyond Mr. Ahmadinejad’s supporters — which is why opposition leaders have repeatedly warned the West that harsh sanctions or a strike would be a gift to the regime.

Iran’s nuclear facilities are buried and dispersed. A strike would be ineffective while killing many civilians. The political reaction would be explosive — including in nuclear-armed, unstable Pakistan.

David Keppel
Bloomington, Ind., Dec. 24, 2009

•

To the Editor:

Alan J. Kuperman advocates American military airstrikes against Iran’s nuclear facilities, claiming President Obama’s diplomatic efforts have failed.

Mr. Kuperman argues, “If nothing else, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have shown that the United States military can oust regimes in weeks if it wants to.” And replace them with what?

Does Mr. Kuperman recall that in 1953 the C.I.A. ousted an Iranian regime that was replaced by the brutal shah? Eventually Iranians overthrew the shah and installed a theocracy, for which we are now paying a price.

It is time we realize that the Middle East is like a hornet’s nest that we strike at our peril. Mr. Kuperman concedes, “Negotiation to prevent nuclear proliferation is always preferable to military action.” But he is too quick to claim that diplomacy has failed. I say give Mr. Obama a chance to earn his peace prize.

Jerry Wallingford
San Diego, Dec. 24, 2009

•

  To the Editor:

It was appalling to see Alan J. Kuperman’s recommendation that the United States bomb Iranian nuclear facilities because Iran has refused to agree to the terms proposed by the International Atomic Energy Agency for processing nuclear fuel abroad.

Mr. Kuperman’s proposal, if carried out, would be likely to kill a large number of Iranian civilians, unite most Middle East nations against the United States, destroy the rapidly growing dissident movement in Iran, end any Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations, end allied support of American efforts in Afghanistan and encourage Iran to resume and accelerate a nuclear weapon program that most experts believe was suspended six years ago. That is too high a price to pay.

The better solution would be a Middle East nuclear-free zone, but that would require that Israel acknowledge and then destroy its own secretly developed nuclear arsenal, currently the only nuclear threat in the region.

Thomas A. Halsted
Gloucester, Mass., Dec. 24, 2009

The writer is former executive director of the Arms Control Association.