“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:
Obama to Issue Disastrous "Cybersecurity" Executive Order
Mexican Version of Obamanomics Won’t Work any Better than US Version
Europe's Unraveling Is Not Political but Technological
Peter Schiff: The real fiscal cliff
Bill Bonner: It’s a Mad, Mad World… and Getting Madder
Ron Paul: What the FBI/FISA Memo Really Tells Us About Our Government
Gold Down, What Now?
Inspector general's report on FBI and Clinton's emails shows secrecy threatens democracy
How to Start a War by the Bootstrap Method
How much are social justice warriors costing their colleges?
The viral skinnydipping scandal, and the real story
“It Could Never Happen Here”
Interview With Daniel McAdams, Ron Paul's Foreign Policy Advisor
Paul Craig Roberts: Has Washington’s Arrogance Undone Its Empire?
The Deep State’s Christmas Present to America: Surveillance That Never Ends