While I still tend to think the current drum-beat to war with Iran will stay just a drum-beat, things are starting to heat up a little bit- Iran has refused access to a particular site to UN inspectors.
If Iran is not willing to prove its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes, “we’ve got to assume the worst,” a Defense Department officer concludes.
I always wondered after the WMD search in Iraq came up empty, why Saddam Hussein was so unwilling to allow inspectors. I know that the appearance of weakness may have hurt his image domestically, but a little bit of bad press is nothing compared to a few hundred Tomahawk missiles and thousand pound bombs – did he think we weren’t serious about the attack? That he would win? It’s always been a bit of a mystery to me – the answer to which would probably be illuminating right about now.
The thing is, military intelligence people really are the most pessimistic people in the world – if you think the bad guy’s missile has a range of somewhere between 100 and 200 miles, you damn well assume it’s 200.
The next quote, in the article, though didn’t really sell me:
While it’s not publicly discussed, there’s consternation that a military strike on Iran before then will hurt President Obama’s chance of winning a second term.
While the public is tired of war, I don’t see that a military strike would do anything but solidify support behind the President in particular if were limited to air/sea engagements. Besides, it’s not like any of his potential opponents would OPPOSE the war if it were to come. “In order to sweep all 50 states, the President would only need to do two things: blow the Ayatollah’s brains out in Times Square, then walk across the street ot Nathan’s and buy a hot dog.”