0 votes

Pat Buchanan: What War with Iran Means

What War with Iran Means
By Patrick J. Buchanan

"Diplomacy has failed," Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., told AIPAC, "Iran is on the verge of becoming nuclear and we cannot afford that."

"We have to contemplate the final option," said Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., "the use of force to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon."

War is a "terrible thing," said Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C., but "sometimes it is better to go to war than to allow the Holocaust to develop a second time."

Graham then describes the war we Americans should fight:

"If military force is ever employed, it should be done in a decisive fashion. The Iran government’s ability to wage conventional war against its neighbors and our troops in the region should not exist. They should not have one plane that can fly or one ship that can float."

Danielle Pletka of the American Enterprise Institute, Neocon Central, writes, "The only questions remaining, one Washington politico tells me, are who starts it, and how it ends."

As to who starts it, we know the answer. Tehran has not started a war in memory and is not going to launch a suicide attack on a superpower with thousands of nuclear weapons. As with Iraq in 2003, the war will be launched by the United States against a nation that did not attack us — to strip it of weapons it does not have.

But to Graham’s point, if we are going to start this war, prudence dictates that we destroy Iran’s ability to fight back. At a minimum, we would have to use air strikes and cruise missiles to hit a range of targets.

First, Iran’s nuclear facilities such as the uranium enrichment plant at Natanz, the U.S.-built reactor that makes medical isotopes, the power plant at Bushehr, the centrifuge facility near Qom and the heavy-water plant at Arak.

Our problem here is that the last three are not even operational and all are subject to U.N. inspections. There are Russians at Bushehr. And there is no evidence that diversion to a weapons program has taken place.

Continue reading: http://original.antiwar.com/buchanan/2010/04/01/what-war-wit...



Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Pat is on a roll !

I have to ask. Isn't Irans biggest beef with Israel (the Zionist regime) about the treatment of the Palestinian people and the taking of their land?
If so it is not likely they would attack because it would harm the Palestinian people and destroy the lands in wich they live also or the lands that have been stolen from them would be in ruins. I don't see Iran doing that.
Please give me some input on this. Thanks ahead of time.

Watch Congress declare war almost unanimously

For the first time since Dec. 8th, 1941.

=======
RON PAUL 2012

Good Article

Pat Buchanan offers another good paleoconservative viewpoint here. I don't think that it is America's job to search the world for monsters to destroy. This is one of the reasons why we have a huge national debt. If Iran really was a threat, we would deal with it appropriately. We shouldn't, however, attack just to attack, as many neocons want to do.