International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei said that an attack on Iran over its refusal to freeze its nuclear program would be an act of madness . . . [that] would not resolve the issue.
Quite to the contrary, an attack on Iran that destroys its nuclear program and regime is long overdue. The purpose of such a strike would be to end the mounting threat from Iran, which has been waging war on the West for decades and is now seeking even more powerful weapons. Retaliating against Iran doesn't mean embarking on an Iraq-like crusade to bring its people the vote; instead, it means using military force to make the regime non-threatening ' for the sake of defending American lives.
Diplomatic attempts to persuade Iran to give up its quest for nuclear bombs have been going on for years and have produced no results other than buying time for Iran's nuclear program and conferring on that hostile and tyrannical regime unearned legitimacy as peace-seeking. Iran's leaders are committed to a global jihad against Western civilization; no negotiations are possible with those who seek your destruction. The West's only moral choice is to defend itself from this deadly threat.
Given Iran's murderous goals and its feverish pursuit of the weapons to achieve them, not attacking Iran would be immoral.
David Holcberg writes from the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, Calif.
17 Archives
Letter to the Editor
