“I am delighted to be here in these new [Council on Foreign Relations] headquarters. I have been often to, I guess, the mother ship in New York City, but it’s good to have an outpost of the Council right here down the street from the State Department. We get a lot of advice from the Council, so this will mean I won’t have as far to go to be told what we should be doing and how we should think about the future.”
- Hillary Clinton
- Time to Attack Iran (Foreign Affairs, Published by The Council on Foreign Relations):
Why a Strike Is the Least Bad Option
In early October, U.S. officials accused Iranian operatives of planning to assassinate Saudi Arabia’s ambassador to the United States on American soil. Iran denied the charges, but the episode has already managed to increase tensions between Washington and Tehran. Although the Obama administration has not publicly threatened to retaliate with military force, the allegations have underscored the real and growing risk that the two sides could go to war sometime soon — particularly over Iran’s advancing nuclear program.
For several years now, starting long before this episode, American pundits and policymakers have been debating whether the United States should attack Iran and attempt to eliminate its nuclear facilities. Proponents of a strike have argued that the only thing worse than military action against Iran would be an Iran armed with nuclear weapons. Critics, meanwhile, have warned that such a raid would likely fail and, even if it succeeded, would spark a full-fledged war and a global economic crisis. They have urged the United States to rely on nonmilitary options, such as diplomacy, sanctions, and covert operations, to prevent Iran from acquiring a bomb. Fearing the costs of a bombing campaign, most critics maintain that if these other tactics fail to impede Tehran’s progress, the United States should simply learn to live with a nuclear Iran.
But skeptics of military action fail to appreciate the true danger that a nuclear-armed Iran would pose to U.S. interests in the Middle East and beyond. And their grim forecasts assume that the cure would be worse than the disease — that is, that the consequences of a U.S. assault on Iran would be as bad as or worse than those of Iran achieving its nuclear ambitions. But that is a faulty assumption. The truth is that a military strike intended to destroy Iran’s nuclear program, if managed carefully, could spare the region and the world a very real threat and dramatically improve the long-term national security of the United States.
- Heads Of Mossad And Shin Bet May Have Leaked Plans For Attack On Iran, PM Netanyahu Orders An Investigation (Guardian, Nov. 3, 2011):
… the main suspects are the former heads of the Mossad and the Shin Bet, respectively Israel’s foreign and domestic intelligence agencies.Netanyahu is said to believe that the two, Meir Dagan and Yuval Diskin, wanted to torpedo plans being drawn up by him and Ehud Barak, the defence minister, to hit Iranian nuclear sites.
In January the recently retired Dagan, a hawk when he was running the Mossad, called an attack on Iran “the stupidest idea I’ve ever heard“.
“The stupidest idea I’ve ever heard“ = WW III:
- RT: Russia Warns ‘Grave Consequences’ Would Follow Any Strike On Iran – Adrian Salbuchi: IAEA ‘Evidence’ Provided By US,UK, France And Maybe Even Israel Itself, ‘The Proof Is Very Vaque’, Evidence ‘Not Properly Substantiated – History Lession
- Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Calls Head Of IAEA A US ‘Puppet’ (Video – Guardian, Nov. 8 2011) … And He Is Correct … Nuclear Wikileaks: Cables Show Cosy US Relationship With IAEA Chief (Guardian, Nov. 30, 2010)