Almost everything you read about the “increasing tension” between Iran and the United States revolves around the rhetorical question, “will there be a war?” Whether it’s our own pundits or the Europeans who watch us, “war” seems closer every day. Look at the Guardian’s Simon Tisdall, for example:
Read more ....This is how wars start, through a process of hostile rhetoric, mutual ignorance and chronic miscalculation. Anybody in Tehran following the impassioned US debate on Iran will be aware that an influential Washington constituency, aided and abetted by leading Republican presidential candidates Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, favours military action sooner rather than later. For these American hardliners, it is no longer merely a question of destroying Iran’s suspected nuclear facilities. Regime change is the name of the game because, it is argued, that is the only way to ensure Iran never gets the bomb.
'Is it all worth it?' Why we shouldn't write off the Afghanistan campaign just yet -- Allan Mallinson, Daily Mail
Nato prediction of Taliban victory in Afghanistan is immensely damaging -- Simon Tisdall, The Guardian
Defining Syrian regime change -- Roula Khalaf, Financial Times
Syria: a Soviet hangover turned headache -- The Guardian editorial
The Maliki Dilemma -- Kenneth M. Pollack, National Interest
Blame Nato for the mess in Libya -- Ramzy Baroud, Gulf News
Taiwan should get OK to buy F-16s -- J.R. Labbe, The Fort Worth Star-Telegram/McClatchy News
Why all the attention on the Falklands? Five key questions. -- Sara Miller Llana, Christian Science Monitor
Former Contras differ over value of war with Sandinistas -- Alfonso Chardy, The Miami Herald/McClatchy News
Cuba: Wanna buy a revolution? -- Michael Goodwin, New York Post
Our peak oil premium -- Thomas Homer-Dixon, Globe and Mail
No comments:
Post a Comment