"Perhaps the Iranian Mullahs got the message."

Nuclear spurs

This is not his first rodeo but W lost control of the bull

Editor, The Times:

So, Iran halted its nuclear-weapons program in 2003 in response to international pressure, according to the recently released NIE ["Iran halted nuclear arms plan," Times page one, Dec. 4].

Could it also have been because George Bush, with his bumbling invasion and occupation of Iraq, served the interests of Iran better and faster than going nuclear would?

The invasion and occupation of Iraq, fueled by "intelligence" from pro-Iran Ahmed Chalabi, removed Saddam Hussein, Iran's greatest enemy and, during the 1980s, our ally. The occupation of Iraq has bogged down our military, alienated Muslims worldwide, and installed a pro-Iranian, majority Shia government.

Iran's population was decimated in the 1980s by a bloody war with Iraq, and Iran entered the new millennium with a youthful population that was starting to swing moderate.

Our attack on Iraq, based on faulty, fictitious claims of WMD, helped President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to gain power and to unite Iranians with the specter of the U.S. as a predatory enemy, much like the neocons' attempt to have Americans quaking in fear of all things Islamic.

Why should Iran spend years and billions on a nuclear weapon when it can expand its power and influence courtesy of our cowboy administration and about a trillion in our taxpayer dollars?

— Ellen Lewis, Kirkland

Arms and Iran

Crushing aspirations with more than a few well-aimed threats

"Iran: Oops, nevermind" [editorial, Dec. 5] misses some key points on the new National Intelligence Estimate with regard to Iran's nuclear-weapons ambitions. Aside from the usual "Bush lied" insinuation with regard to Iraq, The Times fails to note the report's other implications.

The Iranians evidently had a secret nuclear-weapons development program that our agencies now believe was halted in 2003. The report fails to note that, in 2003, the U.S. and allies took military action against Iraq for many reasons, one of which was we, along with every other major allied nation, believed that Iraq had a WMD program. Libya also capitulated and gave up openly its WMD program after we attacked Iraq. Perhaps the Iranian Mullahs got the message.

Having stopped a secret program, Iran can easily restart the weapons aspect of the program ["Bush: report that Iran halted nuclear plans simply a 'warning,' " News, Dec. 4], and it has openly continued to enrich uranium, with fissile material being the hardest part of the nuclear-weapons process.

Diplomacy without the threat of strong consequences is useless.

As James Taranto at The Wall Street Journal wrote on Wednesday, the left seems to be saying: "The bad news is, the Iranians can restart their nuclear program at any time. The good news is, there's nothing Bush can do about it."

— Richard Brostrom, Port Angeles

A good talking-to

Attacking Iran is not a credible option for the United States. Professional diplomacy is. The Bush administration's alarms in recent months that Iran is developing nuclear weapons are no longer believable, if they ever were. We are working with North Korea. We can work with Iran.

Physicians for Social Responsibility published a report in April documenting the likely devastation to human life and health from a military strike on Iran. In November, the American Public Health Association reinforced this conclusion in a policy statement calling on the United States government to "clearly state that it will not launch a preemptive military attack on Iranian facilities."

Now is the time for direct and multilateral diplomacy to defuse tensions between our two nations.

— David C. Hall, M.D., past president, Washington state chapter, Physicians for Social Responsibility, Seattle

A pinch from Little Boy

If a country possesses enriched uranium, no "weaponization program" is needed to build a bomb. A uranium bomb is so simple to build that the U.S. didn't even bother to test one first before dropping it on Hiroshima. This is as opposed to a plutonium bomb, which required a complicated triggering mechanism.

Making a uranium bomb is so simple that a U.S. Department of Energy study has concluded that terrorists could quite possibly break into a national laboratory where enriched uranium is stored and improvise a nuclear device on the spot.

If Iran does not currently have a "weaponization" program, it could be for the simple reason that no such program is a prerequisite to weapons-use of the uranium.

It is ironic that people who oppose nuclear energy in the U.S. because it might promote "nuclear proliferation" or environmental contamination are OK with nuclear energy in Iran.

Further, The Times "Oops" editorial cites Iran's 2003 decision to back off from plans to build an atomic bomb as proof that President Bush's policies were wrong. But why did Iran make that decision in 2003? And why did Libya make a similar decision in 2003? Obviously, they were reacting to a strong show of force by President Bush in Iraq. If Iran has ended its nuclear program, President Bush deserves the credit.

— Edward Hiskes, Brier

Our word isn't our bomb

Walter Cronkite and David Krieger recently co-wrote a remarkable sentence: "The invasion of Iraq was illegal from the start."

What's even more exceptional is their reason: "Not only was Congress lied to in order to secure its support for the invasion of Iraq, but the war lacked the support of the United Nations Security Council and thus was an aggressive war ... " (my emphasis).

This administration goes to great lengths to assure the world we abide by the Geneva Conventions when it comes to the treatment of detainees: We don't torture (we say).

But when it comes to the charter of the United Nations — another international treaty we have ratified — we ignore what it says and the legal obligations we have accepted.

The charter says the only legal use of military force is to repel an imminent attack, and then only until the U.N. can take up the matter. We agreed to this to when we helped create the U.N. in 1945 to "end the scourge of war."

We talk about "surgical strikes" on Iran — that is, initiating war on Iran — as if the matter were a business venture. We argue costs and benefits. But like the war on Iraq, it would be an illegal war of aggression.

We must not continue to destroy the rule of law ... and debase our own standing in the world.

— Bert Sacks, Seattle

House hunters

Love the facade

Reading the news about subprime loans and repossessions, it just gets worse and worse. The Seattle Times reports that there was deliberate targeting of older people with debt and assets [Special Investigation, Part Two: "Homeowners in debt, seniors prime targets of riskiest loans," page one, Dec. 3].

I can personally attest to the sales pitches. After we bought our house two years ago, we were deluged with refinance offers and I couldn't figure it out. Why would we refinance just after having taken out a mortgage? The latest one arrived today. It reads: "Low Credit Scores = No Problem," "Liens, Bankruptcy — OK."

Now it makes sense, at least from the point of view of the "financial services" industry. Refinance a loan = make money. Foreclose = make money. Sell the repossessed house = make money.

And, according to reports, on some occasions, the institutions foreclosing on homeowners in court didn't even have proof that they owned the properties!

But, don't worry. This is now such a big problem that the government will bail these guys out (with our money).

I shake my head in amazement.

— Richard Shilling, Shoreline

Hate the low ceiling

"Mortgage execs paint bleak housing picture" [Business & Technology, Dec. 4] illustrated how little mortgage industry executives understand the root causes of the mortgage mess.

Especially mind-boggling is Washington Mutual CEO Kerry Killinger's reported wish for the Federal Reserve to continue ramming down interest rates and for government-backed mortgage protection to be expanded. Why is he advocating more of the government intervention that planted the seeds of the current crisis?

It can hardly be denied that the U.S. homebuilding, mortgage-lending and real-estate industries were artificially pumped up with cheap credit and other artificial inducements during the first half of this decade. Consequently, scarce resources were wastefully drawn into construction and marketing of expensive housing, for which there is little genuine demand at today's inflated asking prices.

Contrary to the counterproductive measures the mortgage lobby is prescribing, interest rates should be allowed to rise to market levels, and government subsidies to home buyers should be junked. Home prices will then come down to realistic levels and resources will be redirected toward the production of goods that people are truly willing and able to pay for.

— Mark Warner, Bellevue

A real fixer-upper

No mortgage bailouts, please ["Mortgage woes weigh on investors," Business & Technology, Dec. 4]. It's unfair to tax smart borrowers and non-borrowers (such as renters) to bail out those who overstretched, didn't comparison-shop or didn't read the fine print. Besides, most of the resets, where the loan interest rates kick up, haven't even happened yet.

The people in trouble couldn't qualify for lower-cost loans because they had a history of late payments and defaults, didn't have the income to make the payments on a conventional loan, or didn't have down-payment money.

Yes, there are probably some abusers among mortgage brokers and lenders, but let the state attorneys general and the U.S. attorneys go after them; that's their job.

With any sort of bailout, we also send a message to the entire economy: Go ahead and take stupid risks. If the deal goes sour, we'll bail you out.

Bad enough the Fed lowers interest rates; that policy already presents too much of a moral hazard for me. Don't make it worse. Let the problem-borrowers clean up their own messes.

— Mark Nassutti, Kirkland

No place for pussycats

Reading about the predatory lending and mortgage practitioners, I was struck by the similarity of their tactics to the leopards and hyenas we see on TV nature programs. These animals have been programmed by evolution to circle the herd, identify and isolate the infirm and aged individuals. With tooth and claw they pull them down, devour the best parts and slink off to rest, while assorted vultures and jackals pick over the leavings.

No moral or ethical problem here, just basic nature at work.

Enter the human predators, with no claws or teeth to shred their victims, but with large brains they can hardwire to use computers, calculators and fine-print ballpoints to get the same result — all the while hiding behind a jungle of paperwork.

— Russel Lantz, Federal Way