“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:
Ron Paul, Congress Believes: Spy On Thee, But Not Me
Steve Gibson: The Lesson of Lavabit
Bringing back the Somali shilling
Global Warming Alarmists Seek to Restrict Air Conditioning
Nobel Selects EU ... World Snorts
Hawks Take Flight: Why the Fed's Hypocritical Dialectic Continues
Marc Faber: 'Reduce Government by Fifty Percent Minimum'
Believe a Politician and You Will Lose Your Money
Expatriation - Everyone's Doing it, Maybe You Should Too
Homes for the Price of a Car
Bill Bonner: The worst candidate to replace Ben Bernanke
NDAA: It Still Makes a Mockery Of American Values
Dot-Coms and Bonds Aren’t So Different after All
Bill Bonner: The Fed’s Big Lie
Paul Craig Roberts: Pussy Riot, The Unfortunate Dupes of Amerikan Hegemony
