Sir, Gerard Baker (Prepare yourself for the unthinkable, Jan 27) thinks we might have to attack Iran to stop it getting the Bomb because if it does, nearby countries will want one too. Except for Israel, Russia, India and Pakistan, which already have it, and in the case of the last two, nearly used it on each other.

Western countries have been trying to rearrange the Middle East by military force since the early 19th century, with the results that everyone can see. Mr Baker seems to think that one more invasion might just do the job and solve the global crisis of nuclear proliferation at the same time.

DIARMID O’SULLIVAN
London N4

Sir, Gerard Baker says the West might have to go to war with Iran, despite the horrendous costs involved.

The problem with crude bellicosity is that often its results are the very opposite of those intended. Any nation that finds itself the target of furious sabre rattling from outside will hasten to defend itself with the best weapons available. Contrary to what Mr Baker believes, war is not the solution of our problems with Iran, nor does it help to loudly threaten war.

The answer is quiet, painstaking diplomacy based on a recognition that Iran is behaving quite rationally given the international circumstances that it finds itself in.

JOHN SARGENT
Trieste, Italy

Sir, I have yet to hear a convincing argument as to what British interest is served by our soldiers dying in Iraq, and now Mr Baker wants our brave men to lay down their lives in neighbouring Iran.

It is utterly hypocritical for those of us who already have nuclear weapons to be taking the line we are with Iran. The Iranians quite rightly ask if we can have them, why can’t they? Let them build their nuclear weapons. Iran knows full well that if it ever fires missiles at Israel or anywhere else, it will get the same back with interest. It is called the nuclear deterrent, and is much more effective than sending our soldiers to the Middle East to die.

JEREMY JONES
London NW2

Explore Letters

• Feedback