The war drums are beating louder for a possible military attack against Iran.
If you listen to most of the Republican candidates for president, and many members of Congress there is a possibility of another U.S. military action in the Middle East.
In several debates, Republican presidential candidates have promised to go to war to stop Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon and have strongly criticized President Obama’s handling of Tehran as his most serious foreign policy failure.
Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney said he would direct U.S. forces to pre-emptively strike Iran’s nuclear facilities if sanctions failed.
“If all else fails, if after all of the work we’ve done, there’s nothing else we could do besides take military action,” Romney said at a debate on foreign policy in South Carolina earlier this month.
“You have to take whatever steps are necessary to break its capacity to have nuclear weapons,” said Romney who also proposed covert action such as “taking out their scientists.”
Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum said the U.S. should support an Israeli military strike against Iran. There has been speculation in Israeli media that Israel might strike Iran’s nuclear sites.
With the exception of Congressman Ron Paul of Texas all the other Republican candidates for president support a possible U.S. or Israeli military attack on Iran.
Paul warned against an American overreaction to the perceived threat of a nuclear Iran.
Paul’s stance is in stark contrast to his Republican rivals who have criticized Obama for not being aggressive enough against Iran.
However the president has said the United States was considering all options on Iran to prevent Tehran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.
On Iran, Obama said: “No options off the table means I’m considering all options.”
Dennis Ross, who just retired as the White House’s top Iran policy official, said President Obama was committed to preventing Iran from acquiring a nuclear weapon.
“The administration prides itself on a certain reality that it does what it says,” he said, referring to Obama making good on his promise to capture or kill Osama bin Laden.
The president who had inherited a war that he opposed from the start was right to end the Iraq war. He would be making a mistake to begin a new war with Iran.
Despite hysteria from many of our political leaders and mainstream media there is no concrete evidence of an existence of a nuclear weapons program in Iran.
Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist Seymour M. Hersh, wrote in the November 18th issue of The New Yorker that: “I’ve been reporting on Iran and the bomb for the New Yorker for the past decade, with a focus on the repeated inability of the best and brightest of the Joint Special Operations Command to find definitive evidence of a nuclear-weapons production program in Iran.”
On a newly published International Atomic Energy Agency Report, Hersh concluded: “The new report, therefore, leaves us where we’ve been since 2002, when George Bush declared Iran to be a member of the Axis of Evil — with lots of belligerent talk but no definitive evidence of a nuclear-weapons program.”
An attack on Iran would cause oil prices to soar which would harm the still recovering U.S. economy and the struggling global economy.
A military attack on Iran could have catastrophic consequences and only strengthen Tehran’s determination to make an atomic weapon, said Prince Turki al-Faisal, the former head of Saudi Arabia’s intelligence services.
“Such an act I think would make the Iranians more determined to produce an atomic bomb. It will rally support for the government among the population, and it will not end the program. It will merely delay if anything.”
The prince said that while Saudi Arabia did not favor a military option, it would continue to press Iran publicly.
“We fully support tightening of the sanctions, assertive, assertive diplomacy and concerted action via the United Nations,” he said.
Many of the same Washington media and political establishment calling for President Obama to attack Iran were the same ones calling for an invasion against Iraq because Saddam Hussein allegedly had weapons of mass destruction. They were wrong then. They are wrong now.