Cotton talks up benefits of striking Iran

[DonViejo]

By Steve Benen

The debate over U.S. policy towards Iran tends to follow a predictable trajectory. The Obama administration has told lawmakers that they have a choice: they can allow the international, diplomatic agreement to move forward, or they can push us closer to yet another military conflict in the Middle East.

For Republicans and their allies, this has been labeled a “false choice.” U.S. conservatives don’t want a war, they insist, they just want a different diplomatic solution. What might that alternative policy look like? Republicans, at least for now, haven’t the foggiest idea.

But once in a while, prominent GOP officials slip up and acknowledge that the choice isn’t quite as “false” as they like to pretend. Last week, for example, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) seemed quite enthusiastic about the prospect of a war with Iran. The Times of Israel has a related report today on Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) talking up the benefits of military strikes in Iran.

Speaking to the Israel Diplomatic Correspondents Association, Cotton – who retired from the US Army with the rank of captain – called for the US to make plain to the Iranians that it wouldn’t hesitate to use force if it felt the need to do so. (…)

“You can destroy facilities. I don’t think any military expert in the United States or elsewhere would say the US military is not capable to setting Iran’s nuclear facilities back to day zero,” Cotton said. “Can we eliminate it forever? No, because any advanced industrialized country can develop nuclear weapons in four to seven years, from zero. But we can set them back to day zero.”

There are two broad problems with this.

more
http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/cotton-talks-benefits-striking-iran?cid=eml_mra_20150805

[Comrade Grumpy]

1. Too bad Arkansas voters don't know what to do with poisonous snakes.

[geek tragedy]

2. This is what those in Congress voting against it want.

Once again, it's a GOP-hosted war party with a few LieberDem guests who want a piece of the action.

[angryvet]

3. this man is dangerous

and also stupid. I don't think he paid attention to the classes on "threat" and the size of Iran's military and what nukes can do.

[procon]

4. He reduces these enormously complicated issues to childlike simplicity.

He has given no thought to the spectacular costs or the international blowback that would deservedly smack us in the face after such a stupidly shortsighted action. Like other insecure, small minded, shallow little men, war is his feel-good narcotic, and let the consequences be damned so long as he can stroke his ego.

[neverforget]

5. Tom Cotton is a war mongering asshole