A war against Iran would be counter-productive

Submitted by Gabriel Grosso (Italy), Nov 1, 2005 at 11:57

I am also offended by President Ahmadinejad's call for the destruction of Israel. Last Sathurday, I spoke to a few Iranian exiles who compared Ahmadinejad to Adolf Hitler. However, I don't agree with British PM Tony Blair who wants to "act" against Iran. What does he mean? I hope Tony Blair does not mean war against Iran, because that would be bad news. The war in Iraq has not reduced the likelihood of terrorist attacks against the West, and we now know that 2,000 American troops have been killed in Iraq. Of course, it is too soon to assess the war in Iraq.

But, when it comes to Iran, it is better to seek negotiations and to make diplomatic pressure on the Iranian government than to launch another invasion. A strong condemnation of Ahmadinejad's anti-semitism and diplomatic isolation will be better than a war. New York, Madrid and London teach us how powerful terrorism can be. Of course, the international coalition cannot get out of Iraq before the situation is stable. But to take "action" against Iran would be madness, and it will be bad for Iranians and Westerners alike. Let us not make the huge mistake of attacking/ invading Iran.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".