Mullen: Strike On Iran An Option, But A Bad One

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - Mullen: Strike On Iran An Option, But A Bad One stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS

ANNE GEARAN | 07/ 7/09 09:16 PM | AP

What's Your Reaction?
Mullen

WASHINGTON — A military strike to thwart Iran's nuclear weapons capability remains on the table but could have grave and unpredictable consequences, the top U.S. military officer said Tuesday.

"I worry a great deal about the response of a country that gets struck," said Adm. Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. "It is a really important place to not go, if we can not go there in any way, shape or form."

Iran is perhaps one to three years away from getting the bomb, leaving a small and shrinking opening for diplomacy to avert what he said could be a dangerous nuclear arms race in the Middle East, Mullen said.

"I think the time window is closing."

Mullen said President Barack Obama's diplomatic outreach to Iran holds promise, despite political upheaval and deadly protests following Iran's disputed presidential election.

Obama told The Associated Press last week that persuading Iran to forgo nuclear weapons has been made more difficult by the Iranian government's handling of claims that President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stole re-election.

Mullen pointedly said "the strike option" _ is one possible outcome. He suggested that a strike, meaning missile or other attacks to blow up Iran's known nuclear facilities, is a last resort. It would be "very destabilizing," Mullen said.

Mullen was referring to Iran's response should it be attacked by either the United States or Israel, although he was careful to say that Israel can speak and choose for itself. His remarks made clear that the Obama administration wants to avoid a strike by either country.

Mullen, speaking at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said it is critical to find a solution "before Iran gets a nuclear capability, or that anyone ... would take action to strike."

On Sunday, Vice President Joe Biden had suggested that the new U.S. administration would not stand in the way of an Israeli strike. That is not the message U.S. officials have been trying to deliver in public and private, but spokesmen insisted Biden was not speaking out of turn.

The United States would join European nations, Russia and China in negotiations over Iran's disputed nuclear program, if Iran agreed to terms for beginning the talks. Obama has also said he would hold direct talks with Iran's leadership if it would help. leaders of Group of Eight countries have yet to forge a common position on Iran's violent crackdown on post-electoral protests, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi said Tuesday on the eve of the summit.

Berlusconi, who chairs the gathering of world leaders opening Wednesday, noted that some countries, such as France, were calling for tougher action against Tehran, while others, such as Russia, favored a softer stance to keep dialogue open.

Iran claims its fast-track nuclear development project is intended only for the peaceful production of electricity. Mullen, like other U.S. officials, said he is sure Iran intends to develop weapons and is working hard and fast to do so.

WASHINGTON — A military strike to thwart Iran's nuclear weapons capability remains on the table but could have grave and unpredictable consequences, the top U.S. military officer said Tuesday. ...
WASHINGTON — A military strike to thwart Iran's nuclear weapons capability remains on the table but could have grave and unpredictable consequences, the top U.S. military officer said Tuesday. ...
Report Corrections
 
Comments
53
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: 1 2 Next › Last » (2 pages total)
- Macready I'm a Fan of Macready 58 fans permalink

such unbelievable stupidity . . . . I am sure the israelis must love it . . . .

I am an American and I don't . . . I voted for change not more of the same old same old . . . .

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:58 AM on 07/08/2009
photo

to all the hawks

you do realize that our beloved troops are in the exact middle of iran and Israel.

Question?? are you willing to accept responsibility for the retaliation?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:47 AM on 07/08/2009
- MajorKong I'm a Fan of MajorKong 372 fans permalink
photo

We need to start a war and destabilize the Middle East so that Iran doesn't start a war and destabilize the Middle East.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:54 AM on 07/08/2009
- markytex I'm a Fan of markytex 5 fans permalink

good plan. get er done.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:45 AM on 07/08/2009
- 1088 I'm a Fan of 1088 97 fans permalink

2012 when Palin win, she will bomb Iran, N. Korea and any country that disagree with her! Trust me!!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:40 AM on 07/08/2009
- Montgriz I'm a Fan of Montgriz 36 fans permalink

Iran has every right to develop the weapons it thinks it needs. They are a sovereign nation. this is about Israel, a place where invaders have become occupiers and are bent on taking even more lands....and they have nukes....

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:05 AM on 07/08/2009
- Macready I'm a Fan of Macready 58 fans permalink

totally agree with you Montgriz . . when is israel going to sign up to the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty . . . I won't hold my breath waiting for a response

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:00 AM on 07/08/2009
- Whinger I'm a Fan of Whinger 44 fans permalink
photo

Well, if it's a bad option it's not an option at all, so much hot air!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:56 AM on 07/08/2009
- leonel I'm a Fan of leonel 4 fans permalink

POINTING OUT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT IS RATIONAL AND WHAT IS REASONABLE IS ONE WAY TO ANALYZE THE OPTIONS AND PROBABLE OUTCOMES.

Defining what is "rational" as logical arguments or statements and "reasonable" as more convincing ones is one way to describe dilemmas and to predict behaviors.

Predicting behavior by nuclear armed countries has been studied since the US and Soviets started their cold war, which ended with a stalemate where only mutual suicide was possible. As more countries added weapons, the risk of even accidental use escalated exponentially. Logically, if proliferation keeps increasing, the odds are in favor of chaos, no doubt. If dozens of countries possessed even the smaller nuclear weapons, the likelihood of either terrorists or a rogue country using would approach 50-50 or even more. So by any measure, the resolution cannot be put off indefinitely.

As far as Iran is concerned, however, the danger is more a rational projection than a reasonable one. It is a rational assumption, but not a totally reasonable one, that Iran intends to develop nuclear weapons, or further that it intends to use them. Israel has had enough near-death experiences to convince themselves that Iran may actually act suicidally. On the other hand, Israel is also using this as an excuse to not settle their dispute with the Palestinians.

Negotiations are needed to figure out what Iran and Israel are likely to do. It is too early to let rational projections be convincing, which themselves could escalate risks.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:37 AM on 07/08/2009
photo

Weren't folks championing the people of Iran just last week? Michael Jackson passes and folks forget yesterday's news. So, we may stand by while Israel attacks the same folks we just showed solidarity with. Nothing convoluted about that.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:26 AM on 07/08/2009
- Ides I'm a Fan of Ides 21 fans permalink

Estimates for the amount of time Iran needs to develop a bomb has shrunk from 10-15 years to 1-3 years in a matter of months. Those guys are good.

Or maybe the author should independently verify his sources.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 12:14 AM on 07/08/2009
photo

Too late for diplomacy. Should have thought of that eight years ago. Iraq war has enabled Iran. israel is ready to strike but the region would surely go up in flames. Why keep talking about bombing Iran ? It's probably too late, what with our military bogged down on two fronts. But, our military is very close to Iran and could strike quickly. I wonder what the people in Tehran would think if they met a nuke up close and personal ? Would it take the fight out of them ?? They would probably attack Israel just like Saddam did. Very complicated !!!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:43 PM on 07/07/2009
- windup I'm a Fan of windup 20 fans permalink

Just what we can't afford. Another war. We can't afford health care reform. But another war- fine.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:21 PM on 07/07/2009
photo

we can't afford to get millions of new homeless people off the streets, either. Have you noticed them? But we can think about all kinds of necessary expenses - anything EXCEPT helping the taxpayers that just bailed out the entire banking system.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:42 PM on 07/07/2009
photo

Of course we're going to let Israel bomb Iran. Somehow they are dependent on us for most of their money, yet we still do their bidding. Anyone who still doesn't believe that our pro-Israel foreign policy causes us immense danger lives in a state of cognitive dissonance that I can't even begin to describe. Washington said "no entangling alliances, be friends with everybody and enemies with no one," yet here we are letting a small Middle Eastern nation who is one of the largest recipients of our charity dictate to us how to negotiate with a billion people.

Obama is wrong. Diplomacy has not been made harder by Iran's mis-handling of the election; it's been made harder by him taking sides in their election (never mind the CIA and NED money being pumped into Iran against the ruling establishment).

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:28 PM on 07/07/2009
photo

Israel feels threatened by Iran so it wants to strike first. What? And after G.od forbid they do so, they would still claim victimhood?

I know we've been a friend to Israel since it's very recent creation. We value Israel's friendship because..... Anyhoo, maybe we should expand our friendships in the Middle East so we're not so dependent by this unique friend with it's alternative view of reality.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:19 PM on 07/07/2009
photo

why not, its been working for them for a few decades now.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:35 PM on 07/07/2009
- MajorKong I'm a Fan of MajorKong 372 fans permalink
photo

There's a difference between a "preemptive strike" and a "preventive strike".

The Israelis struck first in 1967 because the Egyptians were clearly deploying for an attack that would likely have come in a few days. That is the textbook example of a preemptive strike.

Our 2003 invasion of Iraq, on the other hand, was a "preventive" war. The Iraqis were not massing for an attack and were no immediate threat.

If you're on trial for murder, there's a big difference between "He had a gun and was going to shoot me" and "He was talking about maybe going out and buying a gun someday".

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:40 AM on 07/08/2009

The pretext to legitimize Israel's desire to bomb Iran is being set and it's almost ready to go. This is really disturbing.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:55 PM on 07/07/2009
- helonias I'm a Fan of helonias 221 fans permalink
photo

A super sonic anti ship missile hits one of our carriers in the crowded gulf.

Full of aviation fuel and munitions and 2 n reactors it burns and explodes and blcoks the gulf.

What will the price of oil be after that?it

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:32 PM on 07/07/2009
Page: 1 2 Next › Last » (2 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

 You must be logged in to comment. Log in  or connect with 

Connect