He says a strike on Iran would "have implications for US forces in the region"; "pointed to a US analysis that a strike on Iran would set back its nuclear program, which Iran says is only for peaceful purposes, by one or two years at most"; and said that "thirdly, there are going to be economic consequences to that, that could impact not just on our economy but the world economy."
Of course, no harm to US forces or to the US or the world economy if Iran goes nuclear--which, it's universally agreed, along with the obvious apocalyptic dangers entailed by Iran itself having nukes, would set off a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. Such an arms race will, of course, be to the great benefit of world stability, security, and, oh yes, prices.
As Jim Lacey, professor of strategic studies at the Marine Corps War College, wrote the other day:
The most commonly used excuse for non-action, however, is that an American military strike would only cause the Iranians to redouble their efforts. Really? In any case, is there some rule against our blowing up their “redoubled” program a year or two from now? Is there not a point where even the Iranians will tire of seeing hundred-billion-dollar investments repeatedly turned into rubbish?
But no such logic exists for Washington. Does Panetta really subscribe to the nonsense he's speaking, or is he just transmitting the wisdom of his commander in chief, Barack Obama? It doesn't really matter. Never fear--the defense secretary assures us: "The United States feels strongly that the way to deal with [the problem] is to work with our allies, to work with the international community to develop the sanctions and the diplomatic efforts that would further isolate Iran."
Might one object that this has already been tried countless times and hasn't been a smashing success, that the Russians, Chinese, Indians, Germans et al. will never give up their ties to Iran's economy, and to suggest at this very late date that "diplomacy" and sanctions are the answer is a severe insult to one's intelligence?
Panetta's views, which, he says, he intends to convey to Israeli defense minister Ehud Barak in their meeting today, constitute one of the worst abnegations of responsibility ever voiced by a top Western official, with potentially catastrophic implications.
