Back to previous page


Post Most

Arguments against an attack on Iran were flawed

One of the points Zbigniew Brezinski made against the United States attacking Iran is that “Iranian nationalism would be galvanized into prolonged hatred of the United States” [“The ‘stupidest’ war?” Washington Forum, Jan. 4]. Really? During World War II, the United States dropped two atomic bombs on Japan and carpet-bombed Germany. Ten years after the war ended, Germany joined NATO, and in 1960 the United States and Japan signed a military alliance.

Mr. Brezinski asked whether “China and Russia, given their veto power” in the U.N. Security Council, would “be likely to endorse” a U.S. attack. I can understand the United States seeking NATO support, but when has it been necessary to seek U.N. approval of U.S. military action? President Bill Clinton bombed Yugoslavia in 1999 and President Ronald Reagan sent troops to Grenada and bombed Libya, all without going to the United Nations first. President Obama’s drone war is underway without U.N. approval.

And Mr. Brezinski said that, since Israel “is considered to have more than 100 nuclear weapons, how credible is the argument that Iran might attack Israel without first itself acquiring a significant nuclear arsenal, including a survivable second-strike capability, a prospect that is at least some years away?” The argument he seems to be making is that we should wait until Iran has a full arsenal — in other words, wait until it is too late to do anything — before we do anything.

Donald Rotunda,

Washington

© The Washington Post Company