Letter to the Editor of the Washington Times, September 6, 2006:
Friday's Page One article "Gingrich opposed to U.S. strike on Iran" suggests that former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich would oppose a possible military action against Iran to prevent the regime from becoming a nuclear power. This is not true. To be clear, Mr. Gingrich believes that the Iranian regime cannot be allowed to develop or acquire nuclear weapons. However, though a military strike on Iran's well-hidden and well-protected nuclear facilities (many of which are spread out and deep underground) would degrade that country's nuclear program, it would not guarantee that Iran would not ultimately acquire a nuclear weapon. Therefore, regime change in Iran should be America's strategy. Mr. Gingrich believes that a successful policy of regime change in Iran should start with what President Reagan did in Eastern Europe to defeat communism. By employing a comprehensive strategy that relied on America's economic, political, diplomatic and intelligence capabilities, Mr. Reagan defeated the Soviet Union without firing a shot. This should be our goal in Iran as well. Mr. Gingrich has said that "a nonviolent solution" that allows terrorists to get stronger and Iran to threaten us with nuclear weapons would be "a defeat," but this is not inconsistent with his belief that there are nonviolent solutions that can weaken terrorists and could prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons. However, the goal remains the same, and that is to keep Iran from getting nuclear weapons without military action if possible but with force if necessary. Rick Tyler Communications director and spokesman Gingrich Communications
Good points.