“John Bolton, America’s ex-ambassador to the United Nations, has called for US air strikes on Iranian camps where insurgents are trained for war in Iraq.
Mr Bolton said that striking Iran would represent a major step towards victory in Iraq. While he acknowledged that the risk of a hostile Iranian response harming American’s overseas interests existed, he said the damage inflicted by Tehran would be “far higher” if Washington took no action.
“This is a case where the use of military force against a training camp to show the Iranians we’re not going to tolerate this is really the most prudent thing to do,” he said. “Then the ball would be in Iran’s court to draw the appropriate lesson to stop harming our troops.”
Mr Bolton, an influential former member of President George W Bush’s inner circle, dismissed as “dead wrong” reported British intelligence conclusions that the US military had overstated the support that Iran was providing to Iraqi fighters.
The Jimmy Carter “bed wetters” at the US Department are probably still hopping mad and busy hurling expletives at the former US Ambassador to the UN. But when the facts are laid on the table for all to see, no one can build a case and defend it, like Mr Bolton (with perhaps the late Jeane Kirkpatrick giving him the run for his money).
What is to be gained by the US in allowing a rogue state like Iran to continue murdering its soldiers, and never forcing Iran to face the consequences for such unacceptable behaviour? Is Iran going to reform its ways because the US refrains from reacting again it, in spite of its outrageous acts of war? What message does it send to other totalitarian regimes, when the US is distracted with something else? “You can do a little and not expect a lot” ?
Bolton is “spot on” with this one, and it’ll take someone in the State Department of equal stature, honesty and moral clarity just to think what John Bolton is openly saying in public, but don’t hold your breath, and you can take that one to the bank. More here. *L* KGS