5 of 65

Write now Article Tools

Perhaps one should look at the possibility of such a conflict from another perspective. A fundamentalist state, Iran might just see it's credo, traditions, or edicts which it embraces as an living affect, be under threat by western ideology. While the obvious place one might look to is the United States, other more indigenous sources may also be perceived as threatening to Iran's accepted way of life. Muslim fundamentalists usually don't want to embrace social change. Their society is one that has endured for centuries, despite attempts by outsiders to effect change, to the profound satisfaction of those who accept their ordered way of life. An exception may possibly be those moderates in Iraq who actually believe a democratic form of government might work. Granted, these moderates are a long way from establishing a cohesive coalition-which may never happen. But if it did, and democracy flourished in not just Iraq, but in other parts of the Middle East, a quantum shift of applied thought as to how peoples of disparate views could come together, with or especially without major western influences, could severely destabilize the premise that a fundamentalist state is the only proper sovereign form of government. It is my opinion that the neo-cons currently running the American government see that the only way to stabilize the Middle East is to have all peoples there establish their sovereignty by legislative fiat, and not by firm, if not inflexible forms of religion.

Nuclear proliferation has been an impossible genie to be placed back in the bottle of political security. Although not without much effort by the powers already so powered, much labor to put in check the spread of atomic weaponry has, so far, met with mixed results. Proper efforts by the major powers intelligentsia has mostly kept the spread to a minimum. But I wonder if all, correct efforts has been carried out. In the news, recently, has been reported that concerns about Iran's nuclear program have been overstated by the current administration. An administration whose apparent desires have been to roil public opinion for the past several years in the direction to condemn Iran for proceeding to mature its nuclear research. An now come the facts that Iran stopped its program advancement in 2004. By beating the drum of jingoistic speech, Mr. Bush has tried to get world opinion to his side to form a coalition of belief that an invasion of Iran to quash their influential power in Iraq would be a step towards peace. Bear in mind, Iran's single largest friend in the East is Vladimir Putin. A man not to be toyed with, especially now that he has apparently secured far-reaching political strength in Russia. Instead of further alienating Mr. Putin, the Bush administration should try to mend as many fences as is diplomatically feasible. Backing off Iran would be a critical first step. At least until it can be proved beyond doubt to Mr. Putin, as perceived by his sensibilities, that Iran is a threat. A military alliance of Iran and Russia would not be in the world's best interest to even consider, let alone form. Add to that, Iran's alleged missile purchasing connection to China, and the sweat would form on many brows of several departments of state, in short order. No, America should not attack Iran.

Learn more about this author, Albert Pryor.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

Add your voice

Know something about Should America attack Iran??
We want to hear your view. Write now!