2006-04-11 - 4:15 p.m.
Recently, there has been a lot of talk about George Bush and his administration attacking Iran to destroy its nuclear facilities. The talk has mainly been focused on "bunker-buster" bombs and tactical nuclear weapons destroying the Iranian deep underground facilities and retarding the nuclear program (even if it is truly 100% for civilian purposes). I understand this. They all make it sound like it is just a thing they need to do and get it over with and then Iran will start over again. Amazingly, there is no discussion about Iran's seeing this as an act of war and retaliating against everything American (including the state of Israel). Why is Iran's retaliation not being considered? In other words, what the newspaper headlines here in the US call "strikes against facilities" will easily be turned into "US starts WAR against us" by the Iranians, and all hell breaks loose in the region because Iran is a tough cookie. They will not yield like Iraq did. American bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities will be seen as WAR and Iran will fight back with its military against the US troops in the area. Furthermore, Iran can challenge the American actions as unconscionable in the United Nations, if the bombs used to destroy the nuclear sites are Nuclear themselves. This will severely discredit the US military actions in the eyes of the international community, seeing that it resorted to using a nuclear weapon 50 years later after its previous use against Japan. Iran can claim a holocaust brought upon its people by America. How good can that be for American history?
�
�
