“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:
Pat Buchanan: Too Many Wars. Too Many Enemies.
A Social Phenomenon: Protests Erupt in Brazil
John Hussman: On Governance
Continued EU Weakness Gives Rise to Two Inflationary Trends
James Bovard: Why Ruby Ridge Still Matters
Michael Scheuer: As scandals deepen, Obama and Republicans will intervene in Syria
Bill Bonner: What the Papers Aren't Reporting About the NSA Scandal
Europe's Unraveling Is Not Political but Technological
Wendy McElroy: Print Me A Revolution
Corporate Bonds Are The IEDs Of Monetary Central Planning
The British Empire in Yemen
Let’s Rethink U.S. Policy Toward the Af-Pak Region
Glenn Greenwald: The Right's brittle heroes
Trump Wants to Make It Easier to Start a Nuclear War. This Should Petrify Us
Global War on Terror (GWOT) Was a Hopeless Blunder from the Get-Go
