'Take Military Action' Before They Get Nukes' Sen. Lindsey Graham , page 3

I decided to write Mr. Graham, and will certainly do my part to get Chambliss and his ilk out of my House of Representatives:

To the Honorable Mr. Graham - I am appalled by your recent comments regarding Iran. How can you possibly justify not only pre-emptive but completely destructive military actions against any sovereign nation? Why do you continue extending doctrine of attacking first "for freedom"? Your rhetoric is the same as was used to attempt to justify attacking Iraq, a quagmire we find ourselves still deeply entrenched in almost a decade later, and surely for years to come. An Iraq that was in it's former condition and regime due directly to US support and intervention. Iran appears to share a great deal in common with Iraq at this current juncture in history. The shift of power there is also the result of direct US interference in 1953. The obvious lack of WMD's is being twisted into "probably cause" of them existing soon. A call for military action before being militarily assaulted is being passed through the media (recently by you and others) in order to try to build public support for Congressional acts to "help" the Administration have "tools" to deal with Iran on an interventionist basis. Attempts to invalidate the leadership in the country and create a separation between the leaders and the people therein who "want freedom but need our help" through said Congressional acts. What, about any of these warmongering notions, is in alignment with any of our founding values and Constitutional commitments? Regarding Iran's history, they are doing better than we are on the count of invading other countries. They have historically stated multiple times that they do not wish to pursue a nuclear weapon, but energy. In this moment of intense rhetoric for possibility, why has the rhetoric of intent not been given equal purchase? What about the rhetoric of fact? The facts are that the base in Qom is not "new", but that it's existence has been known to the USA at least since 1993. The facts are that Iran imports more than 40% of it's refined oil products/gasoline, in large part due to war and fear generation to stem investment into their oil refinement industries. Yes, we are creating a need for them to look to alternate means of energy such as nuclear by propagating rhetoric to discourage investment in their economy and impose sanctions against countries who export fuel to them. Iran has voluntarily signed a nuclear non-proliferation treaties, recommended international non-proliferation and nuclear decommissioning standards and granted the IAEA access to their facilities. The agreement that Iran has been accused of failing to uphold was a voluntary supplement to provide notice of the building of a facility, instead of the norm of notification upon activation, that was not even ratified by their parliament. Announcements from Iran that this voluntary supplement would no longer be honored came after western decisions to discontinue true talks with them regarding their nuclear program. The same program that was announced in 1950, was aided by the USA in 1960 with a reactor, and was projected to increase to upwards of 40 reactors by 1994. In the midst of this apparent disinformation assault through the media, little attention is given to other nuclear powers in that region who absolutely refuse to sign a non-proliferation treaty, much less deal with the IAEA or any UN requests regarding curbing the creation of nuclear weapons. North Korea has actually created a nuclear weapon and is being left on the sideline with minimal attention. Israel has an estimated 80-250 nuclear weapons and refuses to sign a treaty OR submit to inspections. This is the same country who undertook unilateral and pre-emptive attacks on Iraqi nuclear facilities, despite being a UN member and agreeing to the articles of the UN Charter which promotes the sovereignty of member nations and an agreement to deal peacefully and respectfully with member states. Israel, who has again threatened to execute a pre-emptive strike against a UN member state on the basis of a perceived threat. Iran is in no means a completely innocent bystander in all of this. There are people making policy who are obstructing movements towards peace and a greater acceptance within the international community. However, the same could be said of the United States. With comments such as yours, threatening military violence in the extreme absence of any attack on the United States, how are we extending a hand of fellowship? Your remarks may have been taken contextually had they been balanced with the call for other countries, including allies such as Israel, to heed the call of nuclear non-proliferation, but unfortunately they only seem to be a flagrant attempt to incite fear and a call for war. Please reconsider your militant and unsubstantiated policy against Iran and become a true representative of the American public. We do NOT call for military action in Iran. We do NOT call for interventionist policy and global policing and enforcement. We do NOT call for inequality in the treatment of UN member states in their need to promote nuclear non-proliferation. Last, but not least of all, we do NOT call for our elected representatives to disseminate warmongering and inconsistent policy remarks which create a divisive and detrimental environment for our country. With Kindest Regards,