Pithy Platitudes for Israel

A 'think tank' called the Oxford Research Group (stated agenda: "promotes non-violent solutions to conflicts") has made the brilliant pronouncement that an Israeli attack on Iran would "be the start of a protracted conflict that would be unlikely to prevent the eventual acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran and might even encourage it." Of course, the 'think tank' didn't think a whole lot about what the consequences of a nuclear Iran might be, nor did it even think about what other measures short of an Israeli attack might stop Iran from going nuclear.

The Oxford report estimated it might take three to seven years for Iran to develop a small arsenal of nuclear weapons if it decided to do so. It said there was no firm evidence such a decision had been taken by the Islamic Republic.

Any Israeli strike would be focused not only on destroying nuclear and missile targets but would also hit factories and research centers and even university laboratories to damage Iranian expertise, the report said.

This would cause many civilian casualties, it added.

Military action would include the direct bombing of targets in Tehran and probably include attempts to kill technocrats who managed Iran's nuclear and missile programs, the report said.

Brilliant analysis. Where can I get a throwing around pithy platitudes like that?

Yes, of course, an Israeli strike against Iran could lead to a long war. But what are the choices? The US under Obama is more likely to start rounding up Republican supporters than it is to bomb Iran. And if there is no strike, we might find ourselves living with an Iranian nuclear weapon - one that could even be set off by Hamas or Hezbullah at their whim.

What could go wrong? posted by Carl in Jerusalem