A Strike Is Looming
If Iran and the US continue on the present trajectory I am afraid another conflict will ensue, not conventional warfare but a strike on that countries uranium enrichment facilities’. The loss of life will be minimal, a truly unfortunate outcome of even a surgical attack but more satisfactory than soldiers and Marines against Iran’s military. A strike of this nature will set Iran’s nuclear program back a decade or so giving diplomacy another chance. You can bet the farm on world-wide outrage coming in the form of threats by some of our allies and accusations that America and our immoral ways is at the root of terrorism. Most of the threats and accusations will be rhetoric, words spoken to mislead less sophisticated governments and cultures that most everyone on the planet agrees that the US is at fault, as usual. The truth, of course, is most of those countries will be delighted that Iran’s nuclear buildup is temporarily in shambles. This situation is truly unfortunate, there are few winners, hardly any but given that as a fact the US must act soon. And how would this be done? As I write there are strategist hunkered around planning tables in the Pentagon working on many different scenarios.
Arnaud de Borchgrave is editor at large of The Washington Times and of UPI and the following is his most recent article:
Officially, all the Arab rulers of the Gulf and other Arab leaders are strenuously opposed to any Israeli and/or U.S. air strikes against Iran's nuclear facilities. But that opposition is eroding rapidly.
Speaking at the Aspen Institute in Colorado last week, the United Arab Emirates Ambassador to the U.S. Yousef al-Otaiba said publicly - before denying it - "I think despite the large amount of trade we do with Iran, which is close to $12 billion, there will be consequences, there will be a backlash, and there will be problems with people protesting and rioting and very unhappy that there is an outside force attacking a Muslim country; that is going to happen no matter what."
And he added, "If you are asking me, 'Am I willing to live with that, versus living with a nuclear Iran, my answer is still the same - 'We cannot live with a nuclear Iran.'" A former Arab leader, in close touch with current leaders, speaking privately and not for attribution, told this reporter July 6, "All the Middle Eastern and Gulf leaders now want Iran taken out of the nuclear arms business, and they all know sanctions won't work."
In a joint op-ed column, former Sen. Chuck Robb and Gen. Charles F. Wald, the air commander in the opening stages of Operation Enduring Freedom in Oct. 2001, say the time is now to prepare credibly for a U.S. military strike. "Sanctions can be effective only if coupled with open preparation for the military option as a last resort ... publicly playing down potential military options has weakened our leverage with Tehran, making a peaceful resolution less likely."
The temptation for President Obama to double down on Iran will grow rapidly as he concludes that Afghanistan will remain a festering sore as far as anyone can peer into a murky future, hardly a recipe for success at the polls in November. With a war in Afghanistan, which is bound to get worse, and a military theater in Iraq replete with sectarian violence, the bombing of Iran may give Mr. Obama a three-front war - and a chance to retain both houses of Congress. End of article.
The above article is reprinted with permission and it represents a fair share of the thinking within the the United Arab Emirates as well as most European and Southeast Asian countries. The point here is that Obama must toss his social work approach in favor of a much more aggressive stance.
http://marvinwiebener.tatepublishing.net