“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:
Gun Rights Helped Blacks During Civil Rights Movement
Western logic on Syria: ‘We need to bomb it to save it’
Bill Bonner: How to Invest Like the Swiss
Justin Raimondo: The Iron Fist in Tampa
How to Start a War by the Bootstrap Method
Obama Won. Now What Will You Do?
Jacob Hornberger: Regime Change is the Root of Evil in Syria
Can You Trust the Case for War this Time?
The Truth about Sequestration
Obama and Israel Stoke a Sectarian Shia-Sunni War
Obama: A Keynesian, Not a Communist
Peter Schiff on Politics, Precious Metals and President Obama's Second Term
London Tube strike: Sack the drivers, and roll out the robots
NYT Sees ‘Dystopia’ in Chinese Surveillance—Which Looks a Lot Like US Surveillance
Never Mind the Wall—They’re Building Warehouses for Immigrant Children