The Jan. 31 editorial “Does another war loom on the horizon?” compares the invasion of Iraq and the search for weapons of mass destruction to the potentially looming conflict in Iran. This editorial disregards the fact that the two situations are vastly different.

While Iraq was not found to have nuclear weapons, the United Nations is aware of and even recently sent representatives to visit Iran’s uranium enrichment facilities — uranium is, of course, a key ingredient in the creation of nuclear weapons. In an effort to force Iran to abandon its nuclear program, NATO has placed an embargo on the oil supplies of Iran to Europe. This has been met with a reply from the Iranian government threatening to block the Strait of Hormuz, an important channel between the Persian Gulf and the Arabian Sea that one-fifth of the world’s oil supply travels through.

The U.S. government has returned the volley, indicating it will take military action if this strait is blocked by Iran. Thus, while the United States and NATO are worried about Iran’s nuclear program (as they should be), they will only take action if the Strait of Hormuz is blocked. Hopefully, Iran succumbs to the demands of the United States and NATO before conflict is necessary. If conflict is necessary, then this will not only infer that Iran has continued with its nuclear program but can also potentially force a rise in oil prices due to the blocking of the strait, causing a ripple effect on the still-fragile economies of the United States and NATO countries.

While I can understand the concerned tone of the editorial in regards to creating more Middle Eastern conflict, the risks to the economy and, more importantly, world security are too great to discount by the allied forces.