Try the new, improved Hartford Courant digital edition today
CT Now

Even if Iran had a bomb, it would never use it against the U.S. or Israel

Recently, U.N. inspectors determined that Iran has the technology to design nuclear weapons but found no evidence that Iran intends to build them ("U.K., France alarmed at Iran nuclear report," Nov. 10).

The administration probably also believes the Iranians aren't producing weapons but wants to convince the world that they are so we can get into a military conflict with them.

As things are winding down in Iraq and there is mounting pressure to begin pulling out of Afghanistan, the next country we attack could be Iran, using the excuse that they are producing nuclear weapons.

Yet if Iran were to attacked Israel or the United States it would surely face devastating retaliation. Iran would be annihilated. Why would any country cause its own destruction?

Mark Frank, Baltimore

Copyright © 2015, CT Now
Related Content
  • Iran deal a 'Pandora's Box'

    Iran deal a 'Pandora's Box'

    If we believe that Iran will cease its nuclear program and its support for international terrorism after the agreement is signed, we are living in a fool's paradise ("Sen. Ben Cardin says U.S. negotiators got 'awful lot' in Iran deal," July 23). The argument that Iran will no longer develop nuclear...

  • Cardin, Mikulski should stand up to Obama and reject Iran deal

    Cardin, Mikulski should stand up to Obama and reject Iran deal

    Contrary to the letter "Ben Cardin needs to make up his mind and support the Iran deal" (Aug. 5), this is the time for Sens. Ben Cardin and Barbara Mikulski to demonstrate that they are a statesman and stateswoman respectively and not simply political supporters of President Barack Obama. Their...

  • Congress should have a say in any Iran deal

    Congress should have a say in any Iran deal

    Under normal circumstances, Congress should not get involved in preliminary treaty negotiations, since it has the option of refusing to pass the document by not mustering a two-thirds vote of approval.

  • U.S. negotiations with Iran are a dangerous farce

    U.S. negotiations with Iran are a dangerous farce

    Having missed a July deadline for reaching an agreement with Iran over its nuclear program, the six world powers party to the talks -- the United States, Russia, China, France, United Kingdom and Germany -- have set November 24 as their new deadline. Iran says there will be no extension if a deal...

  • Iran is not at fault for stalled nuclear talks — Israel is

    Iran is not at fault for stalled nuclear talks — Israel is

    Unfortunately, the skilled Iranian negotiators have already won the game against a concession-minded P5-1 array of nations headed by the United States ("Iran's dangerous game," June 5). With funds now flowing into Iran and even more lucrative trade agreements being discussed with that nation, Iran...

  • Iran deal offers hope

    Iran deal offers hope

    When the Iran deal was announced by Secretary of State John Kerry, I was elated that the negotiators were at last able to reach a reasonable agreement. While some people are asking that we hold out for more, I agree with those who say that we have moved Iran as far as we can move her at this time...

  • Don't compare Israel to Iran

    Don't compare Israel to Iran

    To the letter writer who stated that Iran is in compliance with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, I have the proverbial bridge I wish to sell him ("Iran is not at fault for stalled nuclear talks," June 15). What nonsense!

  • Shouldn't we read the Iran deal before supporting it?

    Shouldn't we read the Iran deal before supporting it?

    I find it un-American that your paper and many in Congress can apparently make a decision to agree with the proposed Iran nuclear deal without reading it or knowing what the side agreements the UN made contain. You are all taking the word of people that have a record of distorting the facts or...

Comments
Loading
84°