Re "Force is the only answer," Current, Nov. 19
It is ironic that the same day Joshua Muravchik was advocating bombing Iran, Henry Kissinger was explaining that we had lost the war in Iraq and need the cooperation of Iran to allow our troops to exit without causing chaos and a wider war in the Middle East.
It is hard to get people to cooperate while bombing their nation. Bombing Iran unites all Islam against the "Great Satan" and plants new seeds of hate and fear.
Really want nuclear control? Adopt the Syrian plan for ridding the entire Middle East of weapons of mass destruction, including Israel's nukes, so the entire region can have a new start at real peace.
In the end, communism failed because of the intellectual bankruptcy of its ideas. The great contribution of the West was to stay cool for the long haul and not do anything stupid -- though we came close enough. Radical Islamism will eventually fail for the same reason. But so far we have responded with little more than panicked shots from the hip, and Muravchik's proposal is more of the same. Bombing Iran, even on the massive scale he proposes, won't destroy its nuclear program, it'll accelerate it. And it will probably spark all-out war throughout the Middle East, triggering a massive energy crisis in the United States.
What is truly scary about Muravchik's article is that the disastrous consequences of such policies are blindingly obvious. If this is the level of informed advice shaping American foreign policy, our current troubles are just a taste of far worse nightmares to come.
Bombing Iran would be a war crime and would greatly endanger our troops in Iraq. Iran does not have the bomb and is not a threat to us. Muravchik's careless, macho ranting reminds me of those who deceived our country into bombing and invading Iraq. Why would The Times give a forum to this kind of senseless warmongering?