Considering an attack on Iran

Re “No war by proxy,” editorial, July 3

Your editorial reducing the existential threat to Israel posed by a nuclear-power-seeking Iran to “trying to decide how to deal with a schoolyard bully” is astounding.

The leader of Iran talks about wiping Israel off the map, when the Holocaust occurred in my lifetime. You show great concern that a preemptive attack by Israel will raise oil prices. If you feel so strongly about oil prices, how should Israelis feel about being attacked with nuclear weapons?

President Bush seems to have more of a sense of history and human rights than the editorial board of The Times.

Jerry Freedman

Los Angeles

--

The Times’ editorial states, “The last thing the U.S. needs now is more instability.” As a practical matter, nothing would destabilize the current political situation more than a nuclear-armed Iran.

Think of Hezbollah terrorists roaming the world at will, armed with suitcase atom bombs. The free world will have to pay a price to prevent such a situation. The only question is, do we pay it now or pay it later?

Louis H. Nevell

Los Angeles

--

Re “Risk to U.S. troops seen if Israel hits Iran,” July 3

Israel would never preemptively attack Iran without Bush’s direct support, given the enormous cost and consequences.

Israel’s illegal military attack on a nation certified not to possess a nuclear weapon would cost America politically, economically and further threaten its domestic and international security. Higher gas and consumer prices, expanded terrorism across the Muslim world and potential Sunni-Shiite civil wars are just some of the costs America would pay for an Israeli attack on Iran.

We’ve been down this road with Iraq -- with the fear-mongering, threats, false propaganda and dismissal of the U.N. weapons inspectors’ findings. How many Mideast wars will it take before Americans demand that national interest, not foreign interests, be our priority?

Mohamed Khodr

Winchester, Va.