Seymour Hersh’s frightening article in The New Yorker tells us not only that Bush is planning to attack Iran but that he is considering using nuclear weapons to do so.  Given all the anonymous sources, it’s hard to be sure how seriously to take it.  Perhaps it is all part of some behind-the-scenes negotiating strategy, but it also doesn’t seem wise to believe that these people recognize just how crazy their ideas are.  The kicker line from some defense official is that they believe “a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government.”  Doesn’t that sound like exactly the kind of thing that they might believe?

When the administration geared up to attack Iraq, I thought about what my response should be.  On moral grounds, I felt that removing Saddam was the right thing to do.  In the real world, though, the chances of the cure being worse than the disease looked awfully high.

I went to some futile protests, where I got to walk with some supporters of the North Korean regime.  Later I watched on television as “Shock and Awe” began the inevitable disaster that Iraq has been.  I felt hopeless and turned away to disengagement.  To pacify my conflicted feelings, I told myself I wouldn’t stand by if it came to attacking Iran.  There is no moral or pragmatic confusion — bombing Iran would be both evil and idiotic.

Now it seems that the day may be arriving soon, perhaps in time for midterm elections.  If Bush decides to attack Iran with nukes, what responsibility do we have as Americans?  When do we say enough is enough, risk our comfortable lives, and take action by any means necessary?

Pete DeWan