Dear Glenn (and fellow readers):

Hi! I was just skimming the letters on this post and thought I'd throw in my two cents. I've already written a number of letters to Salon on this subject (maybe too many!) so I'm bound to repeat myself, but here goes.

First, I don't think that an American attack on Iran will lead to retaliatory attacks from Russia or China, as someone earlier suggested. Neither of those countries want a shooting war with the US, particularly China, and everyone understands the slippery slope of nuclear confrontation. However, an attack on Iran would lead to much greater instability throughout the Middle East. The US has what amounts to 150,000 soldiers/hostages in Iraq who would become immediate targets and the Iranian military is powerful and effective enough to sink a number of American ships in the Gulf. Beyond that, Iran has the ability to stir up Shi'a retaliation across the region and the use of "terrorist" groups and tactics to strike at American targets around the world is not impossible. A big fear of the US military is that the hawks who are proposing war assume that Iran can be stopped with bombing and other high-tech solutions alone. But if Iran is not so easily cowed and it unleashes chaos across the region, the US military may have to stage a ground invasion - and it cannot do so. It lacks the men and resources.

At another level (and here, I think, is where China and Russia do come in), an American attack on Iran would break the international system- perhaps irrevocably so. The world system and legal order may be able to survive one blatant American war of aggression - it is doubtful it could survive two. The rest of the world would have to respond to the American action, and the Russians are already making noises about the American abuse of power which is, quite frankly, right on the mark. They probably would begin to build a military coalition to contain the US and arming American enemies - including Iran, which would certainly survive an American assault - would not be beyond the pale. Indeed, it might be the simplest way of establishing a genuine new world order. This is, of course, a worst case scenario, but it is one that is at least somewhat plausible.

Things would not fall apart - very few countries want a return to the Cold War - but the delegitimation of American power in the world would be complete. The Europeans and others would not actively oppose the US, but they would certainly question continuing ties and the Cold War alliance structure would be fatally undermined.

I'm not sure that any of these likely consequences matter to the Americans in the White House, though. Indeed, Iran has been constructed as such a boogeyman that I think people are being naive if they don't realize that an attack on Iran could come under the next administration - whether its Democrat or Republican - too.

The only way to avert this is for the US to change its entire approach to the Middle East, to actually start talking to Iran and to become a real honest broker in the Arab-Israeli conflict. Since that has as much chance of happening as my meeting Santa Claus this Xmas, I'm not holding my breath.

Finally, let me point out that Iran, even with a nuclear weapon, poses little threat to anyone. Jacques Chirac had this right, and the Iranians are fully aware that a nuclear bomb does not buy them the ability to use it. If they get a bomb, it will give them protection - protection from the Israelis and Americans and a shield behind which they can pursue their own policies. Admittedly, those policies are probably detrimental to Israeli and American interests but, oh well, learn to live with it. There is no law saying that Western powers should have the right to do whatever they want anywhere in the world and other powers should not.

Sincerely,

Shaun Narine

Dear Joan,

What I find interesting about Hersh's article is the light it sheds on the military. I suppose it should be no surprise that the US military is a bureaucracy like any other, but I admit that I am always a bit taken aback at how cowardly the top soldiers actually are. I guess I think that people who are trained - at some level - to slaughter other human beings wholesale would be much more difficult to intimidate than ordinary people. Yet, here are all these generals, doing what is in obvious violation of their military codes and the supposed "higher principles" that they are serving, even going so far as to ostracize the few of their number who actually do try to do their jobs. And they are doing this because they want to preserve their careers, or because they are (apparently) afraid of an ass like Rumsfeld. Admittedly, wanting to preserve your career is an understandable reason to be spineless, but I find it curious that so many military people at the upper echelons are so spineless. I wonder what it says about the state of the US military in general? Also, quite frankly, it is this overwhelming evidence of a lack of integrity in the military's top brass that makes me feel the White House could ask these people to do anything - even attack Iran - and they will follow orders like sheep rather than, say, resigning in protest.

Sincerely,

Shaun Narine