Is Iran next?
If Tehran proceeds to build a nuclear bomb, a pre-emptive military strike is possible, but unlikely, analysts say, because political and strategic risks are too high.
Ron Hutcheson, McClatchy News Service
WASHINGTON - The escalating confrontation over Iran's nuclear program raises an unsettling question: Is Iran the next target for U.S. military action?
Some analysts think so. The focus is on diplomacy, but President Bush hasn't ruled out the use of force to stop Iran from building a nuclear weapon. Tensions are likely to rise next Friday if, as expected, Iran ignores a U.N. Aug. 31 deadline to abandon its uranium-enrichment program.
Armed conflict isn't imminent or inevitable, and it wouldn't necessarily take the form of an invasion. Airstrikes might be the choice. But the possibility of military action colors the diplomatic dance that will play out over the coming months in the U.N. Security Council.
"We are creating a situation where everything we're going to try short of military force is going to fail," said Ilan Berman, an Iran expert at the American Foreign Policy Council, which favors an aggressive approach. "By [next spring] we're going to be looking at very serious discussions about next steps, including military options."
The steps to war could follow the same path that led to the invasion of Iraq: The U.N. passes a resolution demanding an end to Iranian nuclear-weapons development, then does not enforce it. Bush prods the United Nations to support its words with action. The U.N. dithers. The president unleashes the military.
"If George Bush is serious about denying Iran nuclear weapons and Iran doesn't respond to our diplomacy, then we're headed to a conflict," said Michael Rubin, an Iran expert at the American Enterprise Institute, a think tank with strong ties to the neo-conservatives who helped shape the administration's Iraq policy.
However, even if the president is leaning toward military action, he faces several constraints. The military is already strained by the deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran could strike U.S. forces in Iraq, incite Shiite militias there to do it or simply unleash Shiite chaos that ends Bush's dream of a stable, pro-U.S. Iraq. Iran also could encourage Hezbollah attacks on Israel.
A unilateral U.S. strike probably would inflame world opinion anew against the United States. It could send global oil prices above $100 a barrel and tip the world into recession.
(The rest is here.)
Ron Hutcheson, McClatchy News Service
WASHINGTON - The escalating confrontation over Iran's nuclear program raises an unsettling question: Is Iran the next target for U.S. military action?
Some analysts think so. The focus is on diplomacy, but President Bush hasn't ruled out the use of force to stop Iran from building a nuclear weapon. Tensions are likely to rise next Friday if, as expected, Iran ignores a U.N. Aug. 31 deadline to abandon its uranium-enrichment program.
Armed conflict isn't imminent or inevitable, and it wouldn't necessarily take the form of an invasion. Airstrikes might be the choice. But the possibility of military action colors the diplomatic dance that will play out over the coming months in the U.N. Security Council.
"We are creating a situation where everything we're going to try short of military force is going to fail," said Ilan Berman, an Iran expert at the American Foreign Policy Council, which favors an aggressive approach. "By [next spring] we're going to be looking at very serious discussions about next steps, including military options."
The steps to war could follow the same path that led to the invasion of Iraq: The U.N. passes a resolution demanding an end to Iranian nuclear-weapons development, then does not enforce it. Bush prods the United Nations to support its words with action. The U.N. dithers. The president unleashes the military.
"If George Bush is serious about denying Iran nuclear weapons and Iran doesn't respond to our diplomacy, then we're headed to a conflict," said Michael Rubin, an Iran expert at the American Enterprise Institute, a think tank with strong ties to the neo-conservatives who helped shape the administration's Iraq policy.
However, even if the president is leaning toward military action, he faces several constraints. The military is already strained by the deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan. Iran could strike U.S. forces in Iraq, incite Shiite militias there to do it or simply unleash Shiite chaos that ends Bush's dream of a stable, pro-U.S. Iraq. Iran also could encourage Hezbollah attacks on Israel.
A unilateral U.S. strike probably would inflame world opinion anew against the United States. It could send global oil prices above $100 a barrel and tip the world into recession.
(The rest is here.)
Powered by Blogger
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home