“...military action against Iran should be ruled out as a means of responding to its possible nuclear weapons ambitions. The consequences of such an attack would lead to a sustained conflict and regional instability that would be unlikely to prevent the eventual acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran and might even encourage it.
... ... ...
... an Israeli attack on Iran would be the start of a protracted conflict that would be unlikely to prevent the eventual acquisition of nuclear weapons by Iran and might even encourage it. This would be in addition to the extensive instability and unpredictable security consequences for the region and the wider world.
... the consequences of a military attack on Iran are so serious that they should not be encouraged in any shape or form. That may be an uncomfortable conclusion, given that some of the more robust diplomatic approaches may carry with them an implicit threat of military action, but it is realistic. Put bluntly, war is not an option in responding to the difficult issue of Iran’s nuclear ambitions.”
-
Paul Rogers, P., "Iran report" in International Security Monthly Briefing 2010. 8(2010-07).
No comments:
Post a Comment