In response to Tray Smith’s column on Wednesday concerning President Obama’s “unserious Iran policy,” I ask: Have we learned nothing from Iraq?

As the recent Nuclear Posture Review makes apparent, hopefully the only use for nuclear weapons while they exist will be as deterrents, preventing countries from attacking one another for fear of mutually assured destruction.

One of the primary reasons the United States thought that Saddam Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction was because he wanted the rest of the world (although primarily its neighbor Iran) to believe it.

As Smith goes on about military strikes against Iran, does it not make sense that this would only increase their determination to build a nuclear weapon, in order to prevent any such military strikes from happening?

The other two options Smith describes, blocking the import of refined gasoline into Iran and supporting the Iranian opposition movement, are mutually incompatible. The negative impacts of sanctions on Iranian citizens will undeniably be blamed on the United States by the current government, rightfully so, and will most likely help foment an anti-imperialist, anti-American nationalist union of both government and opposition.

Beyond that, there is still no concrete evidence that suggests a nuclear weapons program in Iran. I have argued it in this publication before and still stand behind it: Khamenei and Ahmadinejad are not madmen intent on blowing Israel off the map the first chance they can get.

Iran has never started a war. Are two unnecessary wars in the Middle East not enough? Is the United States military even capable of fighting a third war? The global responsibilities that Smith speaks of include not picking fights with whoever even minutely disagrees with our ideas of how they should act.

Edward Mostoller is a sophomore majoring in political science.