Editor,

I am writing today about the responsibility of America to protect innocent countries from those who would seek to destroy them. I am referring specifically to the current Iran situation and how Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, their president, has announced that they have become a nuclear state, able to enrich uranium to 20% purity. He holds a strong anti-Israel stance and claims that Israel needs to be "wiped from the pages of history." Sure, the United Nations has put sanctions on Iran, but it is painfully obvious that those sanctions have had a minimal effect on dissuading Iran on pursuing nuclear capabilities.

The United States seems to have adopted a new policy under Obama, which prefers timid diplomacy over direct action. I seem to recall, from my passion for the study of history, that Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq were quite the opposite. Iran will continue to ignore sanctions unless there is a credible military threat backing them. Military action is risky, yes, but what about the danger to the world from a nuclear Iran? Israel is an ally of the United States and also the target of Iran. Are we to let Iran harm an ally because Obama is afraid of confrontation?

It is the responsibility of America to protect smaller countries that are not strong enough to do it themselves. America has the manpower, technology, and resources to achieve that goal. It is only a matter of time until Iran develops a nuke, so a preemptive strike may be the only course of action. If we do not stop countries like Iran, then who will?

Shawn Dean

Marysville







Sources

Associated Press. "Obama and Iran." Wall Street Journal

19 February 2010: A14. Print.

Barnard, Anne. "Iran vote seen as referendum on Ahmadinejad." Boston Globe

15 December 2006, Print.

Fathi, Nazila. "Text of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's Speech." New York Times

30 October 2005, Print.

blog comments powered by Disqus