Breaking the cycle of nuclear proliferation
Regarding your June 17 editorial "The Nuclear Threat in Iran": I agree with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) in bringing to light its findings on Iran's nuclear program objectives. Since the IAEA is not prepared to compromise, Iran will be sure to pull out of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
I believe what Iran is trying to say is: "Why is Israel allowed to maintain its nuclear agenda?" It is the same question one could see between India and Pakistan. It is a tit-for-tat situation. All these countries embarking on nuclear activities are feeling insecure, suspicious of everything around them, not realizing that they hold the entire world hostage.
Mohamed Z. Cassim
I know there are "rogue" nations in the world that are trying to develop nuclear weapons, but I think it's mainly because the Bush administration can bully countries that lack this power. We went after Saddam for trying to develop weapons programs, but we're quite aware that we just have to let North Korea "do its thing," since it already has them. Congress just passed a budget to allow us to do more research on acceptable nukes. The best way to get other nations to realize that it's not in their best interest to have nukes is to get rid of our nukes - or at least keep the status quo and not talk about needing more.
Do we really need to be more powerful?
Farmington Hills, Mich.
Regarding your June 16 article "Insurgency pattern spans Islamic nations": The US ambition to bring modernization to the region began after the Gulf War, and the necessity of doing so began after the events of 9/11. Gaining legitimacy is the big problem in Afghanistan and Iraq. In Saudi Arabia, the Al Saud family is in a state of denial and paralysis, with few options available on how to proceed with fighting terrorism and reforming the country. They are caught between their own fears. But no matter what they choose to do next, the consequences will not fail to appear.
The more the US tries to impose a Pax Americana, the more it will become involved in issues like the support of the totalitarian Saudi regime that have nothing to do with its original interests. It may well become the hostage of regional rivalries and shifting alliances.
If the US wants to fight against terrorism, then it should find another method, because the US presence in the region will only raise anti-American feelings and lead to a more violent agenda from the radical Muslims.
Regarding Daniel Schorr's June 18 column "On Iran, US tries diplomatic approach": The US politicians have kept all their eggs in a few not-so-safe baskets in the Middle East, and those baskets are proving to be more and more dangerous every day.
The situation in this region is quite dynamic. If a few countries were safe a while ago, that does not mean they are still safe for Americans.
Shouldn't American politicians look for a safer basket? Shouldn't they stop this nuclear NPT nonsense and start a direct working relationship with the Islamic Republic of Iran? I am quite sure it would be better to do it sooner than later.
If the Bush administration doesn't do this, then Mr. Kerry's administration will. I am not saying that this will be the sole winning factor in the November elections, yet it could be perceived by American voters as a positive step toward a very important and strategically significant Islamic country.
Ali Reza Kashani
The Monitor welcomes your letters and opinion articles. Because of the volume of mail we receive, we can neither acknowledge nor return unpublished submissions. All submissions are subject to editing. Letters must be signed and include your mailing address and telephone number.
Any letter accepted will appear in print and on www.csmonitor.com .
Mail letters to 'Readers Write,' and opinion articles to Opinion Page, One Norway St., Boston, MA 02115, or fax to 617-450-2317, or e-mail to Letters.