Leading US lawmaker warns of Iran ‘collision course’
A leading Democrat warned Sunday that United States and Iran are on a “collision course” as Tehran steps up its nuclear program and escalates hostilities with its alleged plot to assassinate the Saudi envoy to Washington.
But Dianne Feinstein, the head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, said this was not the time for war with Iran, but for stronger international sanctions to change its behavior.
“Iran is escalating, I believe, its nuclear development. Iran is increasingly hostile,” she said in an interview with Fox News Sunday. “It’s a very dangerous situation.”
Memo to Senator Feinstein: the plot is laughable; the real evidence is non-existent, and even if Saudi Arabia makes a formal complaint at the UN, Russia and China will veto any sanctions against it.
So what then? The US, NATO, and possibly EU sanctions will move forward, to the point of embargoes on Iranian shipping through the Gulf, which will be, in and of themselves, acts of war against Iran.
Your “certainty” about this case is implausible in the extreme particularly in light of the fact that this alcoholic used car salesman was “interrogated” for 12 days before he confessed.
And Senator, you and I probably know very clearly of what that interrogation consisted: that would be anything the guy could think to say to get whatever he believed his interrogators wanted to hear to get whatever torture being applied to stop.
You are also not to be believed when you make the statement “Our country should not be looking to go to war. I think we should be looking to stop bad behavior, short of war.”
What the US is most likely doing here is attempting to either force Iran to make some first move; to engage in a false flag to pin on Iran, or have Israel do the first strike against it, as Israel is very concerned that their “window” for shutting down Iran’s nuclear program is closing very rapidly.
And Senator, every war game scenario I have seen on this indicates that Israel can certainly engage in a first strike against Iran, but cannot win decisively without massive US military intervention. And even that may not save the day if nuclear-armed Russia joins the fray in behalf of Iran.
“The war could be long,” Vered warns, “its length could be measured in years.” The cost that the war will exact from Israel raises a question mark as to the decision to go to war. The relatively light scenario speaks about an Israeli bombing, after which Iran will fire several volleys of surface-to-surface missiles at Israel. Due to the limited number of missiles and their high cost, the war will end within a short time. The missiles may run out, the study states, but the war will only be getting started. “The means that may be most effective for the Iranians is war by proxies—Syria, Hizbullah and Hamas,” Vered writes. “(There will be) ongoing and massive rocket fire (and in the Syrian case, also various types of Scud missiles), which will cover most of the area of the country, disrupt the course of everyday life and cause casualties and property damage. The effect of such fire will greatly increase if the enemy fires chemical, biological or radiological ordnance… massive Iranian support, by money and weapons, will help the organizations continue the fire over a period of indeterminate length… due to the long-range of the rockets held by Hizbullah, Israel will have to occupy most of the territory of Lebanon, and hold the territory for a long time. But then the IDF will enter a guerrilla war, a war the end of which is hard to predict, unless we evacuate the territory, and then the rocket fire will return…”