Re "What if we're wrong on Iran?," Opinion, Oct. 2
Roger Z. George calls for "extremely high standards for evidence." Because President Bush invaded Iraq based on incorrect intelligence, the only logical conclusion is not to invade at all, since 100% assurance will never be obtained.
So what, then, is the point of President Obama's policy of preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon if we have to wait for evidence of one?
Michael V. Hayden, who served as Central Intelligence Agency director under Bush, wrote in a Washington Post op-ed article this week that in an exit interview with then-incoming CIA Director Leon Panetta in 2009, he said: "The Bush administration had not 'cooked' the conclusions of the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. Panetta needed to know that the intelligence community had just gotten it wrong."
George can't have his 100% evidence and prevent the Iranians from obtaining a bomb at the same time.
Jerusalem and Amman, Jordan, are about 50 miles apart; Damascus isn't much farther away from Israel. Southern Lebanon, on Israel's northern border, is a bastion of Hezbollah, one of Iran's Shiite allies.
Any nuclear attack by Iran on Israel would have negative, devastating consequences on the Muslims around Israel, as the winds coming from the Mediterranean Sea would carry any nuclear fallout to the neighboring Muslim countries. With such short distances, the effect of radiation carried by the winds would affect the entire region quickly after an attack.
Israel's best defense against a nuclear attack may well be its close proximity to Muslim countries. It's also a good reason for the U.S. not to stir the pot by attacking Iran.
Letters: Texting-free cars
Letters: Lecturing Obama on foreign policy
Letters: A river of trash in the San Gabriels