Stirring the pot in Iran

Re “Who’s meddling in Mesopotamia?” Current, Feb. 18

Adam Shatz fails to mention several incidents in which the U.S. “meddled” in other nations’ affairs to a greater degree than has Iran in Iraq. Consider U.S. involvement in the mujahedin resistance to the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. These anti-Soviet fighters were provided with equipment more advanced than Iran is supposedly supplying to Iraqi militias. In the 1950s, the U.S. was involved in the overthrow of Iran’s democratically elected but left-leaning prime minister. This ultimately led to the Islamic revolution of 1979. Had we left matters alone back in 1953, we probably would not be in such a difficult situation now

CHLOE PAJEREK

Rochester, N.Y.

*

The U.S. has been meddling in the affairs of other countries for generations. The excuse has always been the interests of the U.S. Sadly, many Americans consider our interests sacrosanct; therefore they supersede any legality or morality.

GABRIELLA KOLIAS

Placentia

*

Re “Think of Iran’s big picture,” Opinion, Feb. 15

Azar Nafisi clearly describes the disastrous effects of any U.S. military action against Iran. Having visited the country half a dozen times, I have been privileged to talk with Iranians from all over the country. I have experienced their courtesy, friendliness to Americans and longing for international acceptance, particularly from us. More than 60% of the population is under 30, and they, like their American counterparts, are avid users of computers and (banned) satellite TV. They want freedom, but there is no doubt that if we attack them, like patriots everywhere, they will defend their country. At the same time, they will lose their dreams and we will have created yet another enemy.

GLORIA VAN GIESON

North Hills

*

Nafisi writes as though any plans in the Pentagon and at the White House vis-a-vis removing Iran’s threat of nuclear bombardment necessarily mean an attack on the Iranian population at large. That is nonsense. If anything, whether Israel or the U.S. hits Iran, it would only be limited targeting of underground factories of weapons-grade uranium and missiles or their depots.

JASCHA KESSLER

Santa Monica

*

Re “Tehran’s role in Iraq unclear, U.S. now says,” Feb. 15

Please stop and think, President Bush. Why would Iran want to subvert our plans for installing a Shiite state in Iraq? Iran has no reasons to send weapons. The only thing standing between Iraq and the rule of the Shiite majority was Saddam Hussein, and we took care of that problem.

DENNIS RICE

Ojai

*

As you reported, Bush, referring to Iran, said, “What’s worse: that the government knew or that the government didn’t know?” He should ask himself that, regarding the spurious information on weapons of mass destruction he used as an excuse to invade Iraq.

NORMAN PALLEY

Culver City