A Military Option for Iran?
I recently mentioned that I had supported Israel's preemptive strike against Iraq's nuclear plant in the making in 1981. However, let us be very clear about the contrasts between that situation and what we are facing with Iran now. The Iraq strike by Israel was carefully calculated. It was put into effect prior to start up of the plant so that there was no risk of nuclear contamination. It was targeted on a Sunday when no personnel were expected to be there so that no lives were taken. And it only required hitting a single site. Also Hussein had a track record for aggressive attacks on neighboring states (the war on Iran that he had launched the year before):
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/june/7/newsid_3014000/3014623.stm
Now we are facing an entirely different picture per the news reports today. We would have to hit about 1,000 sites over a protracted period. Presumably these operating plants would both risk nuclear contamination and the strikes would cause numerous killings and woundings. Israel says that it does not have the military resources to carry out such an operation. Iran both has strong potential supporters (Russia, China, neighboring states) and a ground for resentment towards the two major powers, the U.S. and Britain, that replaced the reform government of Mossadeq in 1953 with the brutal regime of the Shah -- they have a moral edge on us from the past:
http://www.iranonline.com/newsroom/Archive/Mossadeq/
In addition to the above Iran is in a position to punish attackers with a redirection of oil to friends and/or an increase in prices along with another discontented critic of the U.S., Hugo Chavez. Thus, on pragmatic grounds a military attack on Iran is also a loser.
And so history catches up with nations that have abused others.
--
"A war is just if there is no alternative, and the resort
to arms is legitimate if they represent your last hope." (Livy)
--
Ed Kent 718-951-5324 (voice mail only) [blind copies]
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PeaceEfforts
http://BlogByEdKent.blogspot.com/
http://www.bloggernews.net
http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/june/7/newsid_3014000/3014623.stm
Now we are facing an entirely different picture per the news reports today. We would have to hit about 1,000 sites over a protracted period. Presumably these operating plants would both risk nuclear contamination and the strikes would cause numerous killings and woundings. Israel says that it does not have the military resources to carry out such an operation. Iran both has strong potential supporters (Russia, China, neighboring states) and a ground for resentment towards the two major powers, the U.S. and Britain, that replaced the reform government of Mossadeq in 1953 with the brutal regime of the Shah -- they have a moral edge on us from the past:
http://www.iranonline.com/newsroom/Archive/Mossadeq/
In addition to the above Iran is in a position to punish attackers with a redirection of oil to friends and/or an increase in prices along with another discontented critic of the U.S., Hugo Chavez. Thus, on pragmatic grounds a military attack on Iran is also a loser.
And so history catches up with nations that have abused others.
--
"A war is just if there is no alternative, and the resort
to arms is legitimate if they represent your last hope." (Livy)
--
Ed Kent 718-951-5324 (voice mail only) [blind copies]
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PeaceEfforts
http://BlogByEdKent.blogspot.com/
http://www.bloggernews.net
posted by Ed Kent at 9:01 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home