“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:
Michael Hastings: my friend and his enemies
The Tide of Power
The World Goes to Monetary War
Isn't It High Time We Legalize Marijuana?
Where Will QE3 Take Us?
US Obsession With the Importance of the Mideast and Solving the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict
Firebombing Denver instead of Dresden?
Ron Paul: A House Divided Over NSA Spying on Americans
Ron Paul: US Action in Mali is Another Undeclared War
A Jail for Children
Arab Spring’s Final Post Mortem
Noninterventionism Is the Only Cure for America’s Foreign Policy Woes
Jacob Hornberger: Ditch the CIA, the Pentagon, and the NSA
Forced Separation of Children: an American Tradition
Passing Over Eisenhower
