Iran’s nuclear program should not be met with military aggression
I read a very disturbing political column about Iran’s nuclear program in The Maine Campus on Nov. 10.
As the article was written by a fourth-year political science student, I had hoped to read an objective piece about how a path to diplomacy is still possible even though Iran is gaining nuclear capabilities. However, this was not the case and I found myself reading a vile report based in prejudice.
Ryan Campbell said, “Obviously, preventative measures must be taken to halt this hidden nuclear arms race.”
Campbell has wrongfully placed Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad as someone who can decide whether Israel should be wiped off the map.
“Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinijad — a well-known critic of Israel and the United States — has called for the destruction of Israel in the past and on Tuesday stated, “If America wants to confront the Iranian nation, it will certainly regret the Iranian nation’s response,” Campbell wrote.
Ahmedinejad, while holding office, is not the most powerful man in Iran. In terms of “pecking order,” he is the 14th-most powerful person in Iran. Yes, he does have power, but he does not have absolute say over what goes on in the country.
The supreme leader of Iran is Ali Khamenei, if anyone, and he is the true threat. Also, Iran has signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. The nations not within the treaty are India, Pakistan, North Korea and Israel.
To wrap up his article — after saying definitively that Israel should take military action, as it is the only path left — Campbell went on to say, “This is not to say that Israel should conduct a total war and ignite WWIII — rather, Israel needs to remind Iran who the regional power is and that its hostile words will not go unnoticed.”
So after saying “the time to act, if at all, would be now” and that “Israel has to intervene — not because it is the best solution but because it’s the only remaining reason,” Campbell insists we should not ignite WWIII, but I would say that is the precise thing he is advocating for.
There is no getting around it. Aggression, increased political hostility and people holding such opinions against Iran will cause World War III. Demonstrating more military aggression will just incite more violence from the Iranians.
It disturbs me that a fourth-year political science student holds the views that such military aggression would be tolerated from Israel or the United States and [would endorse risking] countless lives in a war based on mutually assured destruction.
Lorik Morgan
Responding to “Political columnist: Nuclear threat from Iran bodes badly for region,” Nov. 10, 2011
