While recently both veteran news reporter Ted Koppel (who just returned from
Maravchik even asks:
Wouldn't such a U.S. air attack on Iran inflame global anti-Americanism? Wouldn't Iran retaliate in Iraq or by terrorism? Yes, probably. That is the price we would pay. But the alternative is worse.
Is that typical how they so easily dismiss the price to pay? This is a lot of dramatic irony in all this, especially if you consider this piece of new:
The White House dismissed a classified a CIA draft assessment that found no conclusive evidence of a secret Iranian nuclear weapons program, The New Yorker magazine reported. (Yahoo news)
Another typical feature of neo-con rhetoric is to use history to simplify a different reality and make it fit their agenda:
After the Bolshevik takeover of Russia in 1917, a single member of Britain's Cabinet, Winston Churchill, appealed for robust military intervention to crush the new regime. His colleagues weighed the costs — the loss of soldiers, international derision, revenge by Lenin — and rejected the idea.
Right, what's next? Superman and Lex Luthor?
Another 'rational' used by the AEI is the "dominance of Iran" and the fear of Mullahs taking over the world:
If Tehran establishes dominance in the region, then the battlefield might move to Southeast Asia or Africa or even parts of Europe, as the mullahs would try to extend their sway over other Muslim peoples
Someone should probably tell those morons that if Tehran establishes dominance in the region, it is thanks to the failure of their policy in Iraq, an idea first laid out by... the American Enterprise Institute. And terrorism fueld by anti-Americanism might indeed be the price to pay in "Southeast Asia or Africa or even parts of Europe,".
But apparently, some people just haven’t learned their lesson yet and live in a world of their own.