There's no tellin'!

Submitted by There is NO Santa Claus (United States), Mar 19, 2012 at 22:37

Stanley b

There's no reason to assume that the O'Bama Administration is against a military response. The Administration SAYS it would rather not do that. It's commendable. What is left unsaid is that a military response is not ruled out.

There is an emphatic consensus that Iran should not obtain nuclear weapons. Sanctions are in place and tightening all the time. Military intervention is something that benefits from operational surprise. Just because the O'Bama Administration SAYS they would rather not intervene militarily doesn't mean they're going to oppose it should all other options run out.

Bear in mind that the O'Bama Administration is owned by Saudi Arabia. (as was the preceding Bush Administration). If the Saudis get nervous, it won't matter if the Israelis would rather not strike Iran (and endure a counter-attack from Hezbollah).

The United States and Israel have no real control over the situation. We and our allies have sent a clear message that we are determined to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons. How that policy plays out in the long run is anybody's guess.

All I know is that the more our politicians bluster about a military attack, the less likely such an attack will succeed. Had the Japanese politicians and news media blustered about attacking Pearl Harbor for 2 to 5 years in advance of the attack, the attack never would have succeeded.

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".