limited attack and wider support in the region

Submitted by myth (Germany), Feb 3, 2010 at 06:27

Amin, I recall an earlier article by Dr Pipes http://www.danielpipes.org/7828/common-sense-egypt-saudi-arabia

which indicates support for such an attack on iran's nuclear sites within the region. This would be a limited attack on the sites only, maybe without any publicity. You say "don't interfere in nobody's country", who would not disagree. In the case of Iran it is to interfere with the government, not the entire country and its population. Second, as pointed out in the referenced article, a nuclear armed Iran affects the neighbouring countries also which means the interference is not limited to Iran.

Third, only the US along with Israel are capable of doing so. That leaves the US especially with some responsibility to decide on action, act in favour of others, standing by doing nothing is just another possible decision. The open threats to Israel along with the weaponization of Iran contitutes the launch of or the buildup to an attack already. I would not define this situation as "peace".

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".