Dear Editor,

I really found this story sad. I appreciate the author's courage in sharing this with the general public, despite the fact (in my view) that he does not come off looking very good at all. He placed his loyalty to his parents - who were prepared to blackmail him - above his loyalty to his wife, his own beliefs and, possibly, the health of his son. None of this is particularly commendable.

Circumcision may be an established Jewish tradition and, indeed, is/was very common in North America. However, mindlessly adhering to any tradition is always dangerous and deeply disturbing. The author is highly secular and his parents appear largely non-observant. Yet, they still insisted on perpetuating a tradition that, I suspect, they really cannot explain. The author went along with it. Was it simple tribalism, the desire to create (in their minds) a physical link to the people of the past? Whatever the explanation, their actions illustrate much of what is wrong with established ethnic/religious identities.

I hope that the author seriously reconsiders his relationship with his parents. If he cannot stand up to them now, over an issue of such importance to his wife and child, then he is going to have problems later in his marriage. No wife (or husband) wants to know that he/she comes after his/her spouses parents when issues of conflict arise.

Sincerely,

Shaun Narine

Dear Editor,

The possibility of an American attack on Iran has always been in the cards and, as bizarre as it sounds, may actually be getting more likely as the Bush Administration comes to an end. Certainly, the neocons have been ramping up their rhetoric on the threat that Iran poses to the Middle East, and the Americans have been increasing their own efforts to diplomatically and economically isolate Iran, and have been trying to build a coalition against Iran among the Arab states. This process of political isolation (at least in the West) has been helped immeasurably by Iranian President Ahmadinejad's inflammatory (though, perhaps, misinterpreted) comments about Israel.

What I find particularly interesting is the possibility that Bush could attack Iran with the considerable support of many Democrats. Some Democrats have opposed the war in Iraq with the argument that it was the "wrong war, in the wrong place, at the wrong time" - which leads me to wonder where the right war, in the right place, at the right time would be. It is easy to convince Americans that Iran is the real threat in the Middle East. Certainly, it has no plans to stop its pursuit of nuclear power and it is actively opposed to American influence in the region. The mostly illusory threat that it poses to Israel is also enough to get most Democrats behind various efforts to keep Iran in its place.

The arguments against an attack on Iran's nuclear program are considerable. The question is can American politicians be convinced that an air attack can be effective without relying on a ground invasion? A ground invasion is something the US cannot do, due to the mess in Iraq, but it is still more than capable of causing enormous damage to Iran just by relying on airstrikes. Of course, there would be no clear way of knowing if the airstrikes were effective. Moreover, airstrikes would still invite retaliation, which could then easily escalate into a situation that would require an all-out invasion - again, something the US can't do. These uncertainties mean that any rational analysis would lead to the conclusion that using military force against Iran is not a viable option. But American leaders have confounded logic and commonsense many times in the past, not the least over the past five years. With all of these reasons not to attack Iran, the only alternative is to talk to Iran- and I've received absolutely no indication that any American politician in an actual position to make decisions is willing to do this. The ISG report went nowhere. The use of economic sanctions against Iran probably can't work - Iran is too important to too many other countries. That leaves only the military option, over the long-term.

For the record, I don't think that Iran poses any danger to the US or Israel. The Iranians are not suicidal; they would certainly not attack either of these countries first. Even a nuclear-capable Iran would only use such a capability if it were backed into a corner. The real threat that a powerful Iran poses is to the balance of power in the region. A nuclear-capable Iran would be a country whose interests would need to be taken into account by its enemies, and which could not be bullied.

In a sensible world, the prospect of a nuclear-capable Iran would lead to increased diplomatic activity and genuine efforts to reduce tensions and conflict in the region. In the Bush world, it leads only to more threats and greater prospects of a wider war - again, another war of choice against an enemy that has been actively demonized in the American media.

Sincerely,

Shaun Narine