I’m sorry that letter writer KP Gillan found my March 12 letter so objectionable.
I do not intend to engage in an extended back-and-forth, so this will be my final response on the matter.
Setting aside religious framing, my central point remains: negotiating with regimes driven by rigid ideological extremism has historically proven unreliable at best and dangerous at worst.
The current government of Iran is not simply a conventional political actor — it is guided by a theocratic system that has, for decades, openly expressed hostility toward the United States.
History offers relevant lessons. During the administrations of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, the United States confronted the Barbary pirates when diplomacy failed, leading to the Barbary Wars. The point is not to relitigate history, but to recognize that there are moments when negotiation alone does not deter aggression.
Looking further back, the Crusades are often cited in modern debate, though frequently without context. While they were complex and not without fault, they were in part a response to centuries of conflict and territorial expansion that had already reached into historically Christian regions.
The broader lesson is not about assigning moral superiority to one side or another, but recognizing that prolonged ideological and territorial conflict rarely yields to goodwill alone. Today’s concern is even more serious.
A nuclear-capable Iran, governed by hardline ideology, presents a level of risk that cannot be ignored. While critics often point to the Iraq War and intelligence failures regarding weapons of mass destruction, that history underscores the importance of caution — not complacency. When the stakes involve nuclear capability, the margin for error is effectively zero.
Regarding Donald Trump, I disagree with the characterization of him as a war monger. His foreign policy approach emphasized deterrence and strategic pressure, with the stated goal of preventing larger conflicts rather than initiating them.
Appeasement has its own historical warning signs. Neville Chamberlain believed he had secured “peace for our time” through negotiation with Adolf Hitler — a belief that proved tragically misplaced. Not every adversary shares the same incentives for peace and ignoring that reality carries consequences.
I respect that reasonable people can disagree on these issues. I also appreciate others in our community, including Ray Anderson, who are engaging thoughtfully in this discussion. My intent is not to provoke, but to emphasize what I believe is a clear and present danger that deserves serious consideration.
Arny Davis
Adna
