Iran should be key topic at hearings

... Indeed, could Meir Dagan, the former head of Israel’s Mossad, have been right when he bluntly said that an attack on Iran is --the stupidest thing I have ever heard--It is to be hoped the forthcoming Senate Foreign Relations Committee+Armed Services Committee hearings regarding the president’s nominations for the secretary of state and the secretary of defense produce a wide-ranging debate regarding the country’s role in today’s unsettled world. The hearings almost certainly will provoke searching questions regarding strategic wisdom of potential U.S. military action against Iran. Recent Israeli media reports have cited former member of President Obama’s National Security Council staff predicting U.S. attack by about mid-year. It is essential that the issue of war or peace with Iran be fully vented, especially with U.S. national interest in mind. Although the president has skillfully avoided a specific commitment to military action by a certain date, absence of a negotiated agreement with Iran regarding its compliance with Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty will inevitably intensify some foreign and extremist domestic clamor for a U.S. military action, alone or in coordination with Israel. Accordingly, 5 potential implications for United States of an additional and self-generated war deserve close scrutiny: How effective are the U.S. military strikes against Iranian nuclear facilities likely to be, with consequences of what endurance and at what human cost to Iranian people?; What might be Iran’s retaliatory responses against the U.S. interests, and with what consequences for regional stability? How damaging could resulting instability be to European and Asian economies?; Could a U.S. attack be justified as in keeping with international standards, would U.N. Security Council, particularly China and Russia, given their veto power, be likely to endorse it?; Since Israel is considered to have more than 100 nuclear weapons, how credible is the argument that Iran might attack Israel without first itself acquiring a significant nuclear arsenal, including a survivable second-strike capability, a prospect that is at least some years away?; Could some alternative U.S. strategic commitment provide more enduring and less reckless arrangement for neutralizing potential Iranian nuclear threat than a unilateral initiation of war in a combustible regional setting? The best available estimates suggest a limited U.S. strike would have only a temporary effect. Repetitive attacks would be more effective, but the civilian fatalities would rise accordingly, and there would be ghastly risks of released radiation. Iranian nationalism would be galvanized into prolonged hatred of United States, to political benefit of ruling regime. Iran, in retaliating, could make life more difficult for the U.S. forces in western Afghanistan by activating a new guerrilla front. Tehran could also precipitate explosive violence in Iraq, which in turn could set entire region on fire, with conflicts spreading through Syria to Lebanon and even Jordan. Although the U.S. Navy should be able to keep the Strait of Hormuz open, escalating insurance costs for the flow of oil would adversely affect the economies of Europe and Asia. The United States would be widely blamed (…..)



Acerca de ignaciocovelo
Consultor Internacional


Introduce tus datos o haz clic en un icono para iniciar sesión:

Logo de

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Imagen de Twitter

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Twitter. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Foto de Facebook

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Facebook. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Google+ photo

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Google+. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Conectando a %s

A %d blogueros les gusta esto: