“One argument for U.S. intervention in Syria is as a message to Iran to take seriously U.S. threats toward its nuclear program—on which Obama has also painted himself into a corner by saying he will not allow Iran to get nuclear weapons. Yet military options to prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons or a nuclear capability have never been very credible—bombing likely will not get all of Iran’s nuclear facilities and will likely only spur Iran to accelerate the program to deter further attacks. In fact, limited U.S. intervention in Syria may not only fail to intimidate Iran, but act as a similar nuclear accelerant.”
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=4702
Related posts:
Nigel Farage: This Is My Greatest Worry As We Head Into 2013
Bill Bonner: How Low Can Gold Go?
J’ACCUSE … !
Google Bus Hate: Give It a Rest
If Chris Kyle Had Been a Muslim, We'd Call him an Extremist
The Government Is Lying to Us About Cybersecurity
Manning Show Trial Exposes the Fraud of Representative Democracy
Homes for the Price of a Car
Michael Scheuer: U.S. leaders’ fingerprints are on the detonators
Shelter in the Storm
Detlev Schlichter: It’s a mad mad mad mad world
Obama’s Latest Arguments Do Not Hold Water
THIS. IS. HYDRA!
How Do You Like Your Central Planners, Bookish or Flamboyant?
Fast-food worker protests help labor unions, not labor