Not Attacking Iran Would Be Catastrophic
By David Holcberg (Santa Barbara News-Press, Sept. 18, 2007)

French president Nicolas Sarkozy said that attacking Iran over its refusal to abandon its nuclear program would be "catastrophic."

Quite to the contrary, an attack on Iran that destroyed its nuclear program and regime is long overdue. The purpose of such a strike would be to end the mounting threat from Iran, which has been waging war on the West for decades, and is now seeking even more powerful weapons. Retaliating against Iran doesn't mean embarking on an Iraq-like crusade to bring the vote to Iranians; instead, it means using military force to make the regime non-threatening--for the sake of defending American lives.

Diplomatic attempts to persuade Iran to give up its quest for nuclear bombs have been going on for years, and produced no results other than to buy time for Iran's nuclear program and confer on that hostile and tyrannical regime unearned legitimacy as a peace-seeking nation. Iran's leaders are committed to a global Jihad against Western civilization; no negotiations are possible with those who seek its destruction. The West's only moral choice is to defend itself from this deadly threat.

Given Iran's murderous goals and its feverish pursuit of the weapons to achieve them, not attacking Iran would be immoral, and truly catastrophic.