“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:
Hoisting the false flag
Jacob Hornberger: From Crises Comes Leviathan
Michael Scheuer: In Mali, the interventionist establishment already is lying about “unintended conse...
Ron Paul: If You Like The Surveillance State, You’ll Love E-Verify
The Shearing of the Sheeple
Marc Faber: "Western Imperial Arrogance Will Ignite Middle-East 'Powder-Keg'"
Eric Margolis: US Struggle With Iran's Peace Offensive
Obama to Issue Disastrous "Cybersecurity" Executive Order
Destroying the Switzerland of Central America
Obama Meets Security Advisors Over "Most Specific, Credible Terrorist Threat In Years"; US Forces On...
New Drums of War
Jacob Hornberger: Political Gamesmanship at the Olympics
Paul Craig Roberts: “The world will not survive the neoconservatives' doctrine”
Ignorance, Intelligence, and War-making
Dot-Coms and Bonds Aren’t So Different after All
