5 Questions for the 'Bomb Iran' Caucus

[Cigar]

Even before the announcement of a successful nuclear "framework" deal (http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/04/us-iran-nuclear-obama-idUSKBN0MV07U20150404) last week between the United States, leading world powers, and Iran, the drums for war were beating. Advocates of a military strike argue that any deal will at best forestall Iran's progress and that only military force will thwart (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/26/opinion/to-stop-irans-bomb-bomb-iran.html?_r=1) its attempts to acquire a nuclear weapon. The problem is, even a large-scale, coordinated U.S. attack on Iran's nuclear infrastructure is unlikely (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/30/gates-military-strike-on-irans-nuclear-program-wont-work/) to effectively cripple the program, and such an attack is likely to energize Tehran's ambitions to obtain a nuclear weapon as soon as possible. Thanks to the deal achieved in Lausanne last week, America should not have to make such a choice. But those who seek to scuttle and undermine the deal and continue to advocate for a military "solution" to the Iranian nuclear program should answer the following five questions and consider some relevant counterpoints.

1. What would the operation(s) really look like?


2. What would Iran's reaction be?


4. What would the diplomatic implications of such an attack be?


5. What are the (real) goals and objectives?



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-w-kearn/5-questions-for-the-bomb-iran-caucus_b_7009540.html

[SoonToBe2LT]

Lol "5 questions"

1. What would the operation(s) really look like?


2. What would Iran's reaction be?


4. What would the diplomatic implications of such an attack be?


5. What are the (real) goals and objectives?

[SoonToBe2LT]

Even before the announcement of a successful nuclear "framework" deal (http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/04/us-iran-nuclear-obama-idUSKBN0MV07U20150404) last week between the United States, leading world powers, and Iran, the drums for war were beating. Advocates of a military strike argue that any deal will at best forestall Iran's progress and that only military force will thwart (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/26/opinion/to-stop-irans-bomb-bomb-iran.html?_r=1) its attempts to acquire a nuclear weapon. The problem is, even a large-scale, coordinated U.S. attack on Iran's nuclear infrastructure is unlikely (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/04/30/gates-military-strike-on-irans-nuclear-program-wont-work/) to effectively cripple the program, and such an attack is likely to energize Tehran's ambitions to obtain a nuclear weapon as soon as possible. Thanks to the deal achieved in Lausanne last week, America should not have to make such a choice. But those who seek to scuttle and undermine the deal and continue to advocate for a military "solution" to the Iranian nuclear program should answer the following five questions and consider some relevant counterpoints.

1. What would the operation(s) really look like?


2. What would Iran's reaction be?


4. What would the diplomatic implications of such an attack be?


5. What are the (real) goals and objectives?



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-w-kearn/5-questions-for-the-bomb-iran-caucus_b_7009540.html

In all seriousness, I'll answer. Though I'm not in favor of it, I know people who are:

1. The operation would look like a bomb hitting the nuclear facilities. Like Israel did to Syria.

2. Not happy, but they're too poor to do anything at this time.

"4". None, really.

5. Revert to number 1.

[Cigar]

Lol "5 questions"

Can someone open the link for SoonToBe2LT ... I guess this is new. :laugh:

[SoonToBe2LT]

Come on, bucko. Have a sense of humor.