Don’t take military action against Iran or North Korea

The reason the United States got involved in Iraq was the idea that its ruthless leader had weapons of mass destruction. As it turned out, there were none found. However, another member of the “Axis of Evil” has ignored international demands to cease uranium enrichment, and the third has apparently detonated a nuclear bomb. An effective strategy to neutralize these possible threats must be created. The WEB realizes it is difficult to deal with countries with leaders such as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Kim Jong-il, but under no circumstances should the United States attack or invade either country before they have taken action of their own. An attack on North Korea is unlikely considering its million man army, ability to devastate Seoul, and apparent nuclear technology. On the other hand, an attack on Iran is a much greater possibility. The WEB believes that this is not in the interest of our country. So far, not a lot action has been taken against Iran. A resolution was passed by the United Nations July 31 demanding that Iran suspend its enrichment and processing of uranium by Aug. 31. The deadline passed, Iran continued on its path to nuclear weapons, and nothing was done. This situation does bring up a lot of issues, but also a lot of options. One line of thinking holds that the actions of Iran and North Korea are intertwined. We must act tough against North Korea so that Iran doesn’t think it can get away with anything. One way to do this would be to apply sanctions. However, instead of possibly hurting those already struggling to survive in harsh conditions, sanctions could be implemented on luxury items that would only affect the rich. Another possibility is to allow Iran to enrich uranium, but only enough for a nuclear reactor. This is what their president has been calling for, and perhaps if we allow them to do that and as part of the deal have unlimited access to investigate what they’re doing, then both sides can have their way. Let us not forget the irony of the situation. Should the only nation to ever kill people with nuclear weapons be dictating who can and cannot have them? The United States is not the king of the world, and certainly isn’t Iran’s boss. Regardless of which strategy is most effective or which one will end up being employed, any strategy is certainly superior to a military intervention which would solve nothing and create a whole new set of problems. An invasion would stretch our military far too thin. We would look even worse to Middle Easterners than we do now, and probably draw the attention of every terror organization in the world. An attack would also cast the currently unpopular government as a defender of Islam against the West. Above all, no one wants another Iraq. When weighing military involvement against other options, there are more things to consider than just the international concerns mentioned above. It would cost billions upon billions of dollars, and we mustn’t forget the impact on the civilians of the invaded country, the well-being of our soldiers who would die or be injured physically or emotionally, and the people they would be leaving behind.