An Attack On Iran: Back On The Table -- Time Magazine
In late 2006, George W. Bush met with the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the Pentagon and asked if military action against Iran's nuclear program was feasible. The unanimous answer was no. Air strikes could take out some of Iran's nuclear facilities, but there was no way to eliminate all of them. Some of the nuclear labs were located in heavily populated areas; others were deep underground. And Iran's ability to strike back by unconventional means, especially through its Hizballah terrorist network, was formidable. The military option was never officially taken off the table. At least, that's what U.S. officials always said. But the emphasis was on the implausibility of a military strike. "Another war in the Middle East is the last thing we need," Secretary of Defense Robert Gates wrote in 2008. It would be "disastrous on a number of levels."
Read more ....
More News On The Consequences Of Attacking Iran
NEW REPORT: Israeli Military Strike Threat on Iran Grows - Risk of Protracted War -- Oxford Research Group
Israeli Attack on Iran Would Start Long War - Report -- New York Times/Reuters
Threatened Israeli strike on Iran would lead to regional war, report says -- L.A. Times
Study: Attack on Iran would be ‘start of long war’ -- Raw Story
Comment: Cost of attacking Iran underplayed -- Financial Times
My Comment: Long time readers of this blog know that I have been very skeptical on the speculation that there will be an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. I am even more so now for the simple reason that none of the assets required to conduct such a strike successfully are in place today. But this is summer time .... and news is scant or uninteresting for those reporters who have not taken their summer vacations yet .... hence these stories.
No comments:
Post a Comment