Iran: A Looming Crisis?
San Diego, CA, May 13, 2007 --(PR.com)-- Despite the ongoing difficulties in Iraq, the Bush administration appears to be seriously considering confronting Iran over its nuclear program. This week, PublicSquare.net takes up the issue with three intellectuals with knowledge of the situation but different opinions about what should be done.
Victor Davis Hanson of the Hoover Institution starts off the debate with "Nuclear Iran?" Hanson lays out the case for taking action and then lists several things the U.S. can do to rein in the Iranian regime. "Let no one doubt," Hanson writes, "that a nuclear Iran would end the entire notion of peaceful global adjudication of nuclear proliferation and pose an unending threat to civilization itself."
James Bovard of the Future of Freedom Foundation, though, sees an attack on Iran as more foolhardy than invading Iraq was. In "The Folly of Invading Iran," Bovard argues that "almost no one alleges that Iran poses any threat to the security of the United States. There are no allegations that Iranian naval forces could seize Boston harbor or that Iranian paratroopers could descend upon Miami or that an Iranian army could surge across the Rio Grande. Instead, the case against Iran is based almost entirely on distant hypotheticals--and on the notion that the United States needs to completely dominate the Middle East."
But Thomas Holsinger makes "The Case for Invading Iran" by providing an ominous view of what might happen if the U.S. does nothing: "Iran’s mullahs will use nuclear weapons as a shield against foreign attack while they more openly support terrorism elsewhere. American acquiescence in Iranian nuclear weapons will lose the war on terror by ceding terrorists a 'privileged sanctuary' in Iran. We’ll have let terrorists have in Iran what we invaded Iraq to stop. The invasion of Iraq will have been a complete waste of effort, and our dead in Iraq will have died in vain."
What do you think? Do we have time on our side, or is immediate action necessary? Take the poll and join in the discussion yourself.
###
Victor Davis Hanson of the Hoover Institution starts off the debate with "Nuclear Iran?" Hanson lays out the case for taking action and then lists several things the U.S. can do to rein in the Iranian regime. "Let no one doubt," Hanson writes, "that a nuclear Iran would end the entire notion of peaceful global adjudication of nuclear proliferation and pose an unending threat to civilization itself."
James Bovard of the Future of Freedom Foundation, though, sees an attack on Iran as more foolhardy than invading Iraq was. In "The Folly of Invading Iran," Bovard argues that "almost no one alleges that Iran poses any threat to the security of the United States. There are no allegations that Iranian naval forces could seize Boston harbor or that Iranian paratroopers could descend upon Miami or that an Iranian army could surge across the Rio Grande. Instead, the case against Iran is based almost entirely on distant hypotheticals--and on the notion that the United States needs to completely dominate the Middle East."
But Thomas Holsinger makes "The Case for Invading Iran" by providing an ominous view of what might happen if the U.S. does nothing: "Iran’s mullahs will use nuclear weapons as a shield against foreign attack while they more openly support terrorism elsewhere. American acquiescence in Iranian nuclear weapons will lose the war on terror by ceding terrorists a 'privileged sanctuary' in Iran. We’ll have let terrorists have in Iran what we invaded Iraq to stop. The invasion of Iraq will have been a complete waste of effort, and our dead in Iraq will have died in vain."
What do you think? Do we have time on our side, or is immediate action necessary? Take the poll and join in the discussion yourself.
###
Contact
PublicSquare.net
James Kidd
888-753-1141
www.publicsquare.net
James Kidd
888-753-1141
www.publicsquare.net
Contact
Categories