A Chilling Preview of War

As Iran continues to enrich uranium, the U.S. military has issued a "Prepare to Deploy" order. Most U.S. readers blamed escalating tensions on a trigger-happy Administration at home

Thank you for producing an intelligent article about the follies of going to war with Iran [Sept. 25]. That is what the media are here for; otherwise, we might be convinced that we would be greeted in the streets with flowers as liberators, that the war would last scarcely six months and that the cost both financially and in the blood of our sons and daughters — as well as Iran's — would be minimal.
Ziggy Pantazis
Sarnia, Canada

Your cover story on the possibility of war with Iran was right: there is indeed an out-of-control President hell-bent on forcing a war between Iran and the U.S. But that President is George W. Bush. He is the President who started an unprovoked war with Iraq under false pretenses, a war that has cost tens of thousands of U.S. and Iraqi lives and is sure to cost many more. The media were asleep at the switch during the run-up to that war and appear to be repeating the same mistake. Wake up, America! Don't let it happen again.
Tad Hardee
Afton, Virginia, U.S.

It is a sad indictment of our society that we are already asking questions about "What war with Iran would look like" rather than "What diplomacy with Iran would entail."
Matthew D. Hindman
Minneapolis, Minnesota, U.S.

Every country knows it would be bombed back to the Stone Age if it attacked the U.S. We're supposed to be frightened out of our wits about the threat from Iran, which is still several years away from producing a nuclear weapon? In George Orwell's novel 1984, the state was in a perpetual war with a constantly changing enemy. Does that sound familiar?
Arlen Grossman
Monterey, California, U.S.

The ostensible reason for the current hysteria is that Iran might make a nuclear weapon, but the timing seems convenient. The saber rattling comes as Republicans find themselves hard-pressed to explain why they shouldn't be thrown out of office. Maybe the Bush Administration can save the day for Republicans by selling Americans another war. But who will save the day for the American and Iranian people, who would have to pay for Bush's folly?
Joe Heaphey
Greencastle, Indiana, U.S.

Americans are embroiled in the Middle East and forced to listen to people like President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran because of our need for oil. We cannot expect success in dialogue or negotiation when those people have something we desperately need. The only way to attain objectivity in foreign policy is to eliminate the oil factor. Americans need to make huge lifestyle changes (sell — or junk — the Hummer, and tighten your belt) while we develop oil alternatives. Otherwise, we will have only ourselves to blame for the huge number of young lives that will be sacrificed in the name of a killer oil habit we couldn't break.
Gerald Witter
Norman, Oklahoma, U.S.

I cannot believe that even Bush would be so stupid as to attack Iran. Has the U.S. learned nothing from Iraq? If the U.S. must destroy nuclear facilities, then it should take out those in Israel. That would remove the need for Arab states to have nuclear weapons.
Don Gardiner
Hertfordshire, England

In "A date with a dangerous mind," you described Ahmadinejad as a "man who had come out of nowhere to win Iran's presidential election." You seem to have forgotten that the election was marred by the accusations of reformist candidates that hard-liners had rigged it. Time's interview with Ahmadinejad, in which he revealed his supposedly peaceful intentions, sounded hauntingly like the polite conferences European and American diplomats had with Adolf Hitler in the 1930s. While Ahmadinejad is a bit more forthright than Hitler about his disdain for Jews, declaring that Israel should be "wiped away" and the Holocaust is a "myth," Neville Chamberlain would have probably found him trustworthy.
Fred S. Carr Jr.
Virginia Beach, Virginia, U.S.

The West may depict Ahmadinejad as dangerous and anti-Semitic, but his interview showed rather a different side. His replies were fairly rational, and you cannot fault him for being an extremist. He may have a very conservative Islamic side, but many Republicans have a conservative Christian side. For those who are critically skeptical of anything Muslim, his words might ring hollow and farcical. But if we are not to judge him with a double standard, then at least he should be given the benefit of the doubt.
Barry Lee
Hong Kong

Ii read the interview with Ahmadinejad with great pleasure. He answered the questions with a hint of arrogance but also with reflection. The U.S. President is committing a mistake by rejecting dialogue. I believe that dialogue is the only way out of this conflict. History shows that peace is never a result of war. Leaders like Ahmadinejad must be taken seriously — and not in spite of but because of different views of the world. Ahmadinejad was fundamentally right in saying, "Everywhere in the world, people are good." If all world leaders shared his view, we would be on the path to peace. But the path will always be long and bumpy.
Bjornar Christensen
Risor, Norway

Papal Fallibility
The extreme reaction of Muslims to an obscure 14th century quotation used by Pope Benedict XVI serves only to demonstrate their fanatical bent [Sept. 25]. Had 25 ayatullahs been kidnapped and beheaded, the reaction would not have been greater. While Christianity has taken its rightful share of blame for the Crusades, the Inquisition and crimes against Jews, Islam seems to be exempt from criticism — with a death penalty waiting for those who dare criticize. Today a faith that foments violence, brutality and even the indiscriminate destruction of civilians, including its own adherents, all in the name of God, must be roundly condemned. Admittedly, the slaughter is the work of fanatics and supposedly is not representative of true Islam. But then where is the condemning, restraining voice of the so-called saner elements of Islam? The world is waiting.
Eugene Ryan
Estero, Florida, U.S.

Pope Benedict XVI's quoting of a medieval text that basically states that Islam is a violent religion resulted in predictable — and violent — reactions in parts of the Muslim world. The irony is so glaring, it is hardly bearable. But the same type of irony can easily be found in Christianity. How much violence has been committed to defend teachings that advise turning the other cheek? It is apparent from history and current events that Christians, Muslims and Jews all believe in the same God. One can only wish he had been more consistent in advocating nonviolence.
Patrik Lindenfors
Nairobi

A quotation is always used to prove one's point; otherwise, it is not required. Pope Benedict XVI quoted a 14th century Byzantine Emperor to support his argument about Islam. Now the Pope is backtracking, but he has shown his real self: he is a latter-day Crusader.
Farrukh Seer
Lahore, Pakistan

Benedict XVI is not just an academician anymore but the political figurehead of the Roman Catholic Church. He made quite a clumsy statement at a time when the tension between civilizations is growing. I disagree with any attempt to draw a line between Islam and Christianity by trying to prove that the former is more "irrational" than the latter. Christianity's violent past shows that such a claim can't be justified.
Andriy Sukhodub
Dundee, Scotland

Pope Benedict XVI's claim that the words he quoted from a 14th century Byzantine Emperor do not reflect his own views raises a most puzzling question: Why then did he quote them? If the Pope's intentions had been more pious than political, he would have sought a positive way to engage Muslims in dialogue.
Esra Tasneem Aslam
Chennai, India

None of the Abrahamic faiths — Islam, Christianity and Judaism — are toothless religions. The Pope should recall the Crusades, when the church used the same sword to further its cause. The Bible says, "First take the log out of your own eye and then you shall see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye" (Matthew 7: 5). At a time when relations between the Muslim and Christian worlds are tense, the Pope's statement added fuel to the fire. It is important that we all respect one another's religion.
Mohiuddin Waseem
Karachi, Pakistan

I was appalled by the reaction of some Muslim brethren to what Pope Benedict XVI referred to in his speech at Regensburg University merely to illustrate a point. The Pope mentioned nothing new but only repeated what had already been said, and that was six centuries ago. Neither the content nor the intent of his speech calls even remotely for an apology from the Pope, yet he has been magnanimous in offering one. He intended no offense to anyone, and I applaud his statesmanlike response to the outcry. I appeal to my Muslim brothers that, instead of impulsive and irrational reactions, they should offer to debate the issues that cause them hurt. A religion is understood by others as its followers in real life practice it.
Amrik S. Gill
Mohali, India

Terms of War
"The face of Haditha" [sept. 25] inappropriately asserted that what happened in Haditha, Iraq, on Nov. 19, 2005, was a "notorious massacre." Although two dozen civilians may have been killed in a wartime firefight, the term massacre concludes that the acts of that day occurred under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty or constituted wanton murder. As no charges have been filed in this case, no one yet knows that to be true. While this incident was certainly a tragedy, the Marines are innocent until proved guilty, and your magazine, as well as the rest of the media, should cease its use of the derogatory term massacre.
Mark S. Zaid
Neal A. Puckett
Washington
The writers are attorneys for Staff Sergeant Frank Wuterich.

Unbecoming Immodesty
time's story on segolene royal, the Socialist Party's candidate for the French presidency, stated that she "shakes up France" [Sept. 18]. As you must know, this country has survived much more dangerous shaking, political or otherwise. And although Royal is quite right in declaring that one should not have to be "sad, ugly and boring to go into politics," what about being modest?
Jean-Jacques Luccioni
St.-Laurent-du-Var, France

Doing Unto Others
the issue regarding the treatment of prisoners suspected of being terrorists is fundamental to the strategy for winning the war on terrorism [Sept. 18]. The Bush Administration is living in the world of 50 years ago, a time when wars could be won militarily. In today's world, wars are won or lost ideologically. To win the war on terrorism we must win the hearts and minds of the Muslim world. Those in the Muslim mainstream must isolate the terrorist fringe within their own communities and eliminate their popular support. To win Muslim hearts and minds, we must regain the moral high ground. Over the past five years, we have sunk to the level of our antagonists. Our actions have driven moderate Muslims to become supporters of extremists and created a seemingly endless supply of terrorist recruits. We must begin to reverse this course by adhering to the rules on prisoner treatment in the Geneva Conventions.
J. William Vega
Corrales, New Mexico, U.S.

Internet Idiocy
Book reviewer Lev Grossman's essay about his feud with a blogging critic initially made me think, Great — a critic got a taste of his own medicine [Sept. 25]. But I read on and found out Grossman had experienced the cyberslander that is so prevalent in Internet blogging. Unfortunately, the Internet has allowed anyone with a computer to pretend to be an expert on anything. No matter how uninformed, unintelligent or unrestrained people may be, they can declare themselves authorities and everyone else complete idiots. Since our society loves sensationalism over substance, such ranting gets more attention than legitimate literature. So maybe the bloggers are right after all. Perhaps trying to produce a thoughtful, responsible opinion makes you an idiot in the desolate wasteland of bloggerspace.
Clark Gerhart
Hazleton, Pennsylvania, U.S.