C060501 Mutual Assured Destruction

The U.S. didn't invade the Soviet Union before they developed the
atomic bomb, nor did we before China, India, or Pakistan went
nuclear. Is Iran somehow more dangerous to our security than those
countries were at the time? Will Iran really sell nuclear bombs to
terrorists or is Iran viewed more as a threat to the major oil producing
nations of the region and thereby a threat to our need for oil? Just as
we didn't invade those other countires, we shouldn't invade Iran, it's
not our fight.

Most of the world's opinion of Iran obtaining nuclear weapons appears
clear... just another genie let out of the bottle by some of the
countries who already have the technology and Iran has the same
rights to produce the weapon as any other country. Russia and
Pakistan have been the biggest help this time in allowing another
country into the nuclear family. Interestingly, currently both allies of
ours.

Mutual assured destruction, or MAD, was a cold war theory that held
that one side would not attack another because common destruction
would fall upon both nuclear powered sides. Let MAD take hold in the
Middle East just as it did and still does between India and Pakistan,
the U.S. and China, and others.

Are the irrational rantings from Iran's leader towards Israel really worse
than what the Soviet Union said about our country in the 1950's and
early 1960's? Israel has the strongest and best trained military in the
Middle East. The primary threat from Iran is to them and they should
decide what measures to take against Iran if they feel sufficiently
threatened. They did just that against Iraq over 20 years ago when they
were attempting to build facilities for producing nuclear weapons.

The U.S. should not invade another Middle East country because we
rely on oil and don't like their leaders. We should not be the sole
protector of oil fields that service many countries with standing armies.
Our Constitution divides the responsibilities of war making by giving the
Congress the authority to declare it and the President the authority to
lead it as Commander-in-Chief. Congress should not declare war
against Iran and make it clear that the President doesn't have the
authority to unilaterally try to destroy another nation's nuclear facilities
when that nation hasn't attacked us or any of our allies in the Middle
East.

There are many things that our country, along with a few allies, and
other interested countries, can do to discourage Iran from continuing
their nuclear ambitions. Most importantly, universal trade and banking
sanctions instituted against Iran by the European Union, England, the
Middle East, and the U.S. would put up a collective road block against
the Iranian government that very few countries would try to engage.

We can't police the entire world and shouldn't try. At a time in history
when more people are enjoying liberty and freedom than ever before,
we have a limited responsibility as a free and wealthy nation to assist
others when we can, punish countries that limit or prevent liberty with
economic and political sanctions, and support the will of the world
when appropriate on the most important issues being faced that don't
directly affect our security. The current opinion of the world is that Iran
has the right to develop nuclear weapons. I hope that opinion changes.