Across the letters pages of Massachusetts, ordinary readers are weighing a question that history keeps posing: what a nation gains when it turns to bombs to settle a rivalry it cannot fully define. Writing in the aftermath of the American campaign against Iran, which the administration calls Operation Epic Fury, they recall Iraq in 2003, Gaza's rubble, and the black rain reported over Tehran, and they doubt that force can deliver the peace its planners promise. Their skepticism is also a civic act, a hope that the people who must live with these choices will hold their leaders to account at th
Readers Question Iran War Aims, Warn of 'Operation Epic Futility' and Nuclear Fallout
Letter writers report civilian deaths and destruction in Tehran, including reported 'toxic' black rain, and point to Gaza, where tens of thousands of ordinary people died.
Operation Epic Fury is very likely to turn into Operation Epic Futility.
Mark
Six letters, six towns. What do they have in common?
Mimi
Doubt about the aim. LaFrance asks outright what the objectives are, and Needalman says there's no plan for who leads Iran afterward.
Mark
Two writers reach for history. Why Iraq and Gaza?
Mimi
Both are cautionary examples. Chase points to the Iraq weapons claim that proved a false alarm, and Needalman to Hamas reportedly regaining control after heavy destruction.
Luke
Careful with Gaza, though. Hamas reasserting control is described as reported, and the disarmament point is Needalman's reading of the plan's status.
Mark
And Ceike's letter?
Mimi
It's about proximity. She notes no war has been fought on American soil since the Civil War, apart from the Aleutians, and asks the leaders to imagine it.
Luke
Her "toxic black rain" comes from a headline she saw. The letter doesn't verify it, and neither can we.
Mark
What about the Christian nationalist claim?
Luke
It's a report LaFrance mentions with no detail on who reported it. It's unconfirmed here.
Mimi
What the letters do show is where readers are looking: the March 28 rallies and the midterms.
Il Polso
- Readers warn that the Iran campaign echoes the 2003 Iraq invasion, with murky objectives and the threat of a long, fruitless war.
- Reports of civilian deaths in Tehran and a grim 'toxic' black rain headline have sharpened anger at aerial bombing that cannot spare innocents.
- Writers doubt any clear path to a successor leadership in Iran and point to Gaza, where tens of thousands died and Hamas still holds ground.
- Letter writers fear a nuclear domino effect, with other nations rushing toward their own weapons, and they are pinning hopes on March 28 rallies and the midterms.
Across the letters pages of Massachusetts, ordinary readers are weighing a question that history keeps posing: what a nation gains when it turns to bombs to settle a rivalry it cannot fully define. Writing in the aftermath of the American campaign against Iran, which the administration calls Operation Epic Fury, they recall Iraq in 2003, Gaza's rubble, and the black rain reported over Tehran, and they doubt that force can deliver the peace its planners promise. Their skepticism is also a civic act, a hope that the people who must live with these choices will hold their leaders to account at the ballot box.
On March 11, 2026, the Boston Globe's letters page gathered a run of reader responses to the American military campaign against Iran. The writers, from towns across Massachusetts, share a deep uncertainty about what the war is meant to achieve.
Bob LaFrance of Gardner asks plainly what the objectives are, and he notes reports, not confirmed findings, that religious nationalist language has entered the Pentagon's approach. Douglas Segal of Middleton, responding to a column about Donald Trump becoming the warmonger he once condemned, quotes Napoleon on rulers who start wars to ease unrest at home, and he urges larger No Kings rallies on March 28.
Barry Needalman of Framingham foresees "Operation Epic Futility." He points to Gaza, where Israel reduced much of the territory to rubble and tens of thousands of civilians died, yet Hamas is reportedly regaining control. He sees the aim in Iran as halting attacks on American interests and preventing a nuclear weapon, but notes no visible plan for a successor leadership that could deliver either.
Fredda Ceike of Townsend writes about distance. Searching for the last war fought on American soil, she recalls the Civil War and a single World War II battle in the Aleutians, then imagines the president and defense secretary living under the bombs that fell on Tehran. Aerial bombardment, she writes, cannot kill a supreme leader without killing innocents, and for a comfortable nation to inflict it is shameful.
John Petersen of Acton objects to an op-ed that set aside "legal and moral concerns," arguing that Netanyahu and Trump have long shown disregard for both, and that voters must choose leaders who respect those limits. Gordon D. Chase of Shirley draws the sharpest parallel: the Iraq invasion was also sold on a threat that proved false, and it brought years of chaos and American deaths. Trump's use of force, he warns, is pushing other nations toward their own nuclear arms.
These are opinion letters, and their claims reflect the views of their authors. What comes next is the March 28 rallies and the midterm elections, which several writers see as the path to accountability.
On the morning of March 11, 2026, the Boston Globe's letters page carried a run of reader responses to the American military campaign against Iran, which the administration calls Operation Epic Fury. The letters come from towns across Massachusetts, and they share a skepticism about what the campaign is meant to accomplish.
The first writer, Bob LaFrance of Gardner, asks what the objectives are. He also points to reports that the Department of Defense has invoked a Christian nationalist angle in its efforts to subdue Iran, and perhaps bring about Armageddon. The source offers these as reports, not confirmed findings. LaFrance says the country needs a change of leadership at home and that the midterm elections cannot come soon enough.
Douglas Segal of Middleton responds to Eugene Scott's March 6 op-ed, "Is Trump becoming the 'warmonger' he disdained?" Segal agrees that the president is now doing what he condemned in his predecessors. He quotes Napoleon Bonaparte: whenever a king sees that his people are about to revolt, he starts a war with another country. Segal suggests this may explain the reversal, and urges that the "No Kings" rallies planned for March 28 be bigger than ever.
Barry Needalman of Framingham predicts that Operation Epic Fury will turn into "Operation Epic Futility," and he leans on Gaza. Israel reduced much of it to rubble and killed Hamas leaders one after another, and tens of thousands of ordinary Gazans died. Even so, Hamas is reportedly reasserting control there. Trump's peace plan called for Hamas to disarm, a step Needalman says has yet to be carried out. He presumes the aim in Iran is to stop attacks on US interests in the Middle East and, above all, to prevent an Iranian nuclear weapon. But he argues Trump has shown no plan to produce an Iranian leadership that would deliver either.
Fredda Ceike of Townsend writes about distance. She searched online for the last time a war was fought on American soil and found the Civil War, 1861 to 1865, plus one World War II land battle in the Aleutian Islands, then an American territory, in 1942 and 1943. Reading a headline that "toxic" black rain was pouring down on Tehran, she wanted to ask President Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth when their homes were last reduced to rubble, their children's school bombed, their local hospital attacked. She notes that aerial bombardment is not selective and cannot kill a supreme leader without killing scores of innocent people. For a country as comfortable and safe as the United States to do this, she writes, is beyond shameful.
John Petersen of Acton takes issue with an earlier Globe op-ed, Avishay Ben-Sasson-Gordis's March 3 piece "Israel's gamble in Iran," which opens with the disclaimer "Legal and moral concerns aside." Petersen says that framing makes sense only because Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and President Trump have long shown disregard for law and morality. He argues that people must choose whether they want a world of law and morality, and that both leaders should be replaced by people who respect those limits.
Gordon D. Chase of Shirley compares the attack to the 2003 invasion of Iraq under George W. Bush. In both cases, he writes, a corrupt and repressive regime destabilized the region, but the main justification was the threat of weapons of mass destruction. In Iraq, the supposedly imminent nuclear threat proved a serious false alarm. The "shock and awe" campaign and the boastful "mission accomplished" claim were followed by years of chaos, thousands of deaths among US service members, and limited gains in regional peace and security. Chase says Trump's embrace of military force has raised the nuclear stakes worldwide, with other nations now considering their own weapons, the very danger both wars were meant to prevent.
These are opinion letters, not reporting, and their claims reflect the writers' views. What to watch next are the March 28 rallies and the midterm elections, which several of the writers name as their route to accountability.
Citazioni salienti
Aerial bombardments are not selective; they cannot kill a supreme leader without killing scores of innocent people.— Fredda Ceike, Townsend (paraphrased)
Whenever a king sees that his people are about to revolt against him, he starts a war with another country.— Napoleon Bonaparte, quoted by Douglas Segal of Middleton
Vuoi la storia completa?
Leggi l'originale su The Boston Globe ↗
Politics & Governance