Is a Military Attack the Only Way?

During his second presidential term, George W. Bush explicitly announced that the military option against Iran was still on the table, but the Iranian conclusion is that American presidents are all talk and no action.

Washington’s fourth round of boycotts against Iran was approved, a final blow against Iran’s nuclear case. What the Republicans and the Democrats agree on over the last few years is the position to take on Iran, which is a crisis in this country [Iran].

In its latest analysis regarding the fourth resolution of boycotts against Tehran, the Weekly Standard wrote that even though Barack Obama proposed a dialogue with Tehran, fighting Iran became the priority. Iran continued its nuclear activities anyway.

In the current administration of President Barack Obama, even White House officials take caution in commenting on the military option against Iran except when grilled. Everyone in Obama’s administration concerns themselves less with the practical threat Israel poses against Iran and more with stopping Iran’s nuclear capabilities. In the White House and State Department these days, the repeated sentiment in every ear is that military action against Iran is a danger. Now here’s the question: is it really so dangerous to attack? The American government should find the answer to this question before it is too late.

Critics believe an attack on Iran could put America on the third front in the Middle East: first Afghanistan, then Iraq and today Iran. These same groups are afraid of Iran’s missiles and that the U.S. soldiers are overextended from being active in Afghanistan and Iraq. Iran could close the Strait of Hormuz, and at the same time, Iranian allies in Palestine and Lebanon would take aim against Israel. The scope of the tension would be even more widespread, and there could be targets on American soil.

The Weekly Standard proceeded to state that if America pointed out the areas of known Iranian nuclear activity, it could help reduce the volume of unwanted consequences. It further stated that it seems unlikely that Tehran is on the path to battle in the wider scope of things. Iran’s nuclear program shows that the government has the goal of nuclear energy and is looking for survival in the global power struggle. In Washington many claimed that Israel should take responsibility for attacking Iran. With all this, at the present time many in Iran consider the United States their main threat and the same number believe that America should dare to deal with Iran. Israel does not possess enough diplomatic or military ability to attack Iran.

The Weekly Standard continued claiming that perhaps the United States is busy in Afghanistan and Iraq, but the truth is that it can still defeat Iran’s army in war. In 2007 George W. Bush sent more troops to Iraq, and Barack Obama has increased troops to Afghanistan, showing that the U.S military still has enough capacity for a third war in the region.

The Weekly Standard wrote, in regards to Iran’s nuclear case and last year’s unrest, that the best solution for the U.S. is to give an opportunity to the opposition in Iran. Unfortunately, Barack Obama didn’t support Iran during unrest from the opposition. In fact, Obama has not done anything for the defense of freedom in Iran.

The journal concluded by repeating that these days it has been proven to everyone that the only way to deal with Iran’s nuclear case is to resort to the military option. Of course, Barack Obama prefers to spend his time in dispute with Iranian diplomats. In 1936, Winston Churchill said that the time to resort to strategies is half, and half has been spent. Now it’s time for action and reaction.