- 5 February 2009
- 0 Comments
- Diplomacy, Neo-Con Agenda, Nuclear file, Persian Gulf, US-Iran War
New York Times op-ed columnist Roger Cohen has penned some extraordinary columns on Iran in recent weeks. For his well-reasoned arguments, his forward-thinking approach, and his grasp of the nuance of US-Iran tensions, he should be applauded.
TEHRAN — When it comes to Iran, the choice of metaphor is limited.
“I would never take a military option off the table,” Barack Obama declared during the campaign, a position unchanged since he became president.
“We are not taking any option off the table at all,” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said at her Senate confirmation hearing.
As for Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, he tweaked the mantra this way: “The military option must be kept on the table.”
All three have also talked up dialogue with Iran. But the question, more pressing since Iran fired its Islamic satellite into orbit this week, remains: what in reality is this threat of force and what purpose does it serve?
I’ve read think-tank scenarios that have the United States bombing Iran’s nuclear installations at Natanz, hitting Iranian military bases to limit the response, imposing a naval blockade and infiltrating special forces from Iraq or Afghanistan. After eight Bush-Cheney years, such plans exist at the Pentagon.
To which my response is: Hang on a second.