Deterring Tehran?

Submitted by Andras Bereny (Israel), May 10, 2006 at 03:34

B"H

Daniel, I have a problem with the following paragraph:

"A campaign by Iranians to avoid confrontation could well prevail, as Iran does not itself face an atomic threat. Going nuclear remains a voluntary decision, one Tehran can refrain from making. Arguably, Iranian security would benefit by staying non-nuclear."

In my view Iran, per definition, as much as any non nuclear nation, does face an atomic threat from the United States, from Britain, from France, from Israel, from Russia, from China, from India, from Pakistan, even from North Corea now, just to mention a few.

As Iran has regional power ambitions it does feel threatend by the nukes of a non friendly world around it.

Being part of this non friendly world towards Iran's ayatollah I have no reason to believe that they can be talked out of from what they are now doing institutionally. This evil has to be stopped and with G-d's help will be destroyed before it's not too late.

The question is: At what cost?

Israel giving up its historic, geographic and biblical heartland, Judea and Samaria, in an attempted global balancing act, doesn't make any sense! It would only lead to muslim terrorist rule, like the one we see in Gaza, permitting them to move closer to Jewish population centers.

The right step on this front is the establishment of a Jewish Autonomy in Judea and Samaria to send a clear message to world terror: You are losers.

Andras Bereny

Kfar Tapuah

Shomron44829 Israel

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".