By Philip Giraldi
"......It is likely that the United States will eventually go to war with Iran. I say this with some confidence. First, both the Obama Administration and Congress are moving rapidly towards harsh sanctions, reflected in the public utterances of Obama and Hillary Clinton and in Congress through HR 2194, which will embargo all refined petroleum imports into Iran, a blockade that will have to be enforced by the US Navy and will be equivalent to an act of war. Second, the United Nations' International Atomic Energy Agency, under pressure from the US and the Europeans to act, has passed a highly critical resolution relating to the Iranian nuclear energy program. Together the maneuverings in Vienna and Washington provide a legal framework for international action directed against Tehran, not unlike Washington's UN engagement that preceded the Iraq invasion. Pressure from both directions means that talks to resolve the issue of Iranian nuclear plans will end and it is only a matter of time before an incident between US and Iranian armed forces leads to a shooting war......
So there is no upside to starting a war with Iran, which makes one wonder why so many in Congress and the media appear to favor it. Even the proponents of war concede that a bombing campaign would only delay, not eliminate, any Iranian nuclear weapons program. In the aftermath of the attack, Iran would certainly seek a nuclear weapon to defend itself from further attacks, making the reasoning behind the original bombing somewhat difficult to fathom. Those who seek regime change are also delusional if they think a military assault will change the country's politics. Quite the contrary. In all likelihood, an attack by Israel or the US would only strengthen the regime. It is quite simply not in America's national interest to continue down the road to war."
"......It is likely that the United States will eventually go to war with Iran. I say this with some confidence. First, both the Obama Administration and Congress are moving rapidly towards harsh sanctions, reflected in the public utterances of Obama and Hillary Clinton and in Congress through HR 2194, which will embargo all refined petroleum imports into Iran, a blockade that will have to be enforced by the US Navy and will be equivalent to an act of war. Second, the United Nations' International Atomic Energy Agency, under pressure from the US and the Europeans to act, has passed a highly critical resolution relating to the Iranian nuclear energy program. Together the maneuverings in Vienna and Washington provide a legal framework for international action directed against Tehran, not unlike Washington's UN engagement that preceded the Iraq invasion. Pressure from both directions means that talks to resolve the issue of Iranian nuclear plans will end and it is only a matter of time before an incident between US and Iranian armed forces leads to a shooting war......
So there is no upside to starting a war with Iran, which makes one wonder why so many in Congress and the media appear to favor it. Even the proponents of war concede that a bombing campaign would only delay, not eliminate, any Iranian nuclear weapons program. In the aftermath of the attack, Iran would certainly seek a nuclear weapon to defend itself from further attacks, making the reasoning behind the original bombing somewhat difficult to fathom. Those who seek regime change are also delusional if they think a military assault will change the country's politics. Quite the contrary. In all likelihood, an attack by Israel or the US would only strengthen the regime. It is quite simply not in America's national interest to continue down the road to war."
No comments:
Post a Comment