“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:
LAPD: Collateral Damage For The Sake Of The State
James Bovard: Comey firing justly knocks FBI off its pedestal
ISIS: Made in Washington, Riyadh – and Tel Aviv
The Silent Republicans
Government Agencies Failed, so We Must Give Them Even More Authority
"State Control": What the UN Firearms Treaty is All About
Benghazi: Who Cares?
U.S. 10 Year Bond Yields in Perspective (1790-Present)
Escape From the Grasp of Congress
The Guns of Zagreb
Will Facebook Bring Down the Government?
Sending a Message? Megaupload's Kim Dotcom Was Beaten Up When Arrested
Can We Ever Trust Black Market Websites Again?
U.S. Now Bombing Assad Forces Openly In Syria
How “Your” Government Works
