INSUBCONTINENT EXCLUSIVE:
TEHRAN Eliot Cohen, a political scientist who promoted the 2003 Iraq invasion on the premise that Saddam Hussein was a bigger threat to
Washington than any prospective replacement, is now on the cusp of seventy.But what takes place when this advocate of a war that cost
trillions of American taxpayer dollars and over a million lives wishes to steer Washington into another devastating conflict? Will he lastly
get his facts straight? Or will he, when again, neglect the lessons of history and focus on an agenda that appears far removed from the
realm of factor and reasoning? He appears to have actually gone with the latter.A ticking clock
Thats the image Eliot Cohen paints in his December 8th Atlanticpiece, prompting a preemptive strike on Iran
He argues that the past fifteen months have left Iran weakened and Israel strengthened, producing a best storm
This, he declares, will undoubtedly drive Tehran towards nuclear weapons, leaving the U.S
with a plain choice: act now, before Iran sprints to the bomb, or deal with the consequencesHis evaluation of the current circumstance
strangely mirrors the arguments he presented to a congressional House committee in 2002 when he similarly pressed for urgent military action
The option before the United States is a plain one, either to acquiesce in a situation which permits the program of Saddam Hussein to
restore his economy, get weapons of mass destruction and posture a lethal risk to his neighbors and to us, or to act to topple him
In my view, the latter course, with all of its threats, is the appropriate one
The risks of failing to act in the near future are inappropriate, he claimed.The Iraq Wars outcome for the U.S.? A significant rise in
Iranian influence throughout Iraq and the broader area
Simultaneously, the invasion sustained American disillusionment with its government and foreign policya sentiment that has actually only
deepened in the years since
Including the loss of over 2 trillion dollars, the war yielded absolutely nothing but hinderances for the United States.Cohens justification
for the Iraq War rested on two now-debunked claims: Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and Saddam Hussein was connected to 9/11
Ironically, he now appears to commemorate the rise of those very groups responsible for 9/11 in Syria.His existing justifications for
attacking Iran needs to be seen through the same lens
Individuals of the authors kind are the closest one could be to a bloodthirsty Neocon
They are thirsty for murder and destruction however are not constantly the cleverest when trying to find validations to make their dreams
come through, a minimum of not anymore.Here is a take a look at Cohens analysis of the current circumstance in West Asia, and why it is
wrong.Israel has actually pulverized HamasIsrael has actually not crushed Hamas; it has actually crushed Gaza and its civilian population
In doing so, it has actually ended up being ostracized all over the world
Public support for Israel, once readily used, is now largely restricted to American congress members paid off by the pro-Israeli lobby
Israels leading leaders once offered as the worlds leading democratic leaders are now desired war crooks
Hamas meanwhile, continues to combat Israeli forces without any signs of tiredness.Israel has actually shattered Hezbollah in Lebanon,
forcing it to accept a cease-fireThe Hezbollah-Israel ceasefire has actually drawn sharp criticism from across the Israeli programs
political spectrum, even from those who support a Gaza ceasefire
The factor? Many think that Lebanon, not Israel, determined the regards to the truce
Israel, escalating tensions after nearly 11 months of reasonably contained skirmishes, intended to get rid of Hezbollah
While the assassination of essential Hezbollah figures was a setback, it didnt attain Israels goal
Far from being incapacitated, Hezbollah not only sustained its attacks however intensified them daily, right up to the
ceasefire.Furthermore, the factor Hezbollah agreed to the ceasefire was not because its military abilities were decreasing
Hezbollah has always prioritized the well-being of the Lebanese population
Israels attacks primarily targeted Lebanons civilians, a tactic the program appears to use in every scenario.Irans attempts to attack Israel
stopped working, but Israel ruined Irans air defensesDismissing the frustrating visual and intelligence proof verifying the success of Irans
Operations True Promise I and II versus Israel, while all at once accepting Israels October 26th attack on Iran as a successbased solely on
the noises of Iranian air defenses responding to quadcopters, with absolutely no proven proof of damage or impact recommends just 2 things:
Either Cohen does not know how to run a smartphone which can give him access to uncensored and unbiased information, or he likes to lie to
himself and everybody around
Both could be the case as well.Iran has no option however to develop nuclear weapons because it has actually grown weakThe IAEA and the
Pentagon have both acknowledged the absence of any Iranian intent to develop nuclear weapons for the minute
Domestic calls for nuclear development are increasing
This isnt driven by a lack of belief in existing Irans military deterrence, however rather by a growing sense that negotiations with the
Irans experience with the 2015 JCPOAwhere nuclear constraints were expected to lift sanctions, just to be followed by even harsher banshas
fueled widespread wonder about
The dominating belief is that, because Iran is currently bearing the economic expenses of a robust nuclear program, it may too gain the
potential benefits.The ball in this case remains in Donald Trumps court
He might pick diplomacy, or go back to a confrontational path that could ultimately require Iranians to go nuke.Moreover, a military strike
versus Iran uses no guarantee of removing its nuclear capabilities
Iran has the necessary know-how, and any effort at disruption would likely just hold-up, not avoid, its pursuit of nuclear weapons if it so
Such an attack may even accelerate Irans nuclear ambitions.Why Iran is not IraqUnlike Iraqs defenseless position during the 2003 intrusion,
Iran possesses considerable military abilities
While a major dispute would unquestionably inflict considerable damage on Iran, the sixty-four-thousand-dollar question is whether the West
is prepared to bear the significant consequences of such an attack.Irans extensive network of underground and dispersed rocket and drone
facilities makes a thorough military strike practically difficult
This indicates Iran would have ample opportunity for retaliation, potentially targeting numerous American and European military bases in the
region, and crippling West Asian oil fieldsa scenario with globally devastating financial repercussions for the whole planet
These are choices Iraq did not have throughout the 2003 invasion.Additionally, the U.S
is ill-equipped to introduce another expensive and ineffective war
Currently involved in the Ukraine conflict and dealing with growing difficulties from China across numerous sectors, the U.S
economy is considerably weaker than in the early 2000s
A staggering $36 trillion national debt and degrading living standards for many Americans badly restrict the resources offered for a dispute
widely condemned as dumb.
