http://www.irna.ir/en/news/view/menu-236/0508164952172506.htm"Two things are very expensive in international politics, the game-theorist Thomas Schelling once observed: threats when they fail and promises when they succeed.
President Bush appears to be headed on a path that could teach him this lesson," Washington Post said in its editorial on Tuesday.
"Last week he responded to Iran's decision to resume work on its nuclear program by asserting that "all options are on the table" to stop Iran's nuclear development. He also implied that, were Israel to strike at Iran's nuclear facilities, the United States would support it. Unfortunately, these are hollow threats, unlikely to have much effect other than to cheapen America's credibility around the world.
(Within hours of Bush's statement, German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder made clear that he would not support any such action against Iran.) Air strikes against Iran would be extremely unwise. They would have minimal military effect: The facilities are scattered, reasonably well hidden and could be repaired within months. With oil at$ 66 a barrel.
More important, a foreign military attack would strengthen local support for the nuclear program and bolster an unpopular regime. Iran is a country with a strong tradition of nationalism -- it is one of the oldest nations in the world.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
