During a speech Friday at Kansas State University, President Bill Clinton warned against a military strike on Iran, saying it was unclear whether “we could take out whatever incipient nuclear efforts they have,” and that even if we could, it is “not clear it would be the most effective strategy.”

“Attacking them is a whole different kettle of fish,” Clinton said. “There are three times as many people as live in Iraq.” Clinton pointed out the growing pressure on Iranian President Ahmadinejad from the country’s political establishment, including many conservative elites. He also noted that Iran’s population is decidedly more moderate and pro-American than its leadership. “What we have to keep in mind in all of our dealings with Iran is not to forget about where two-thirds of the people are, …those two-thirds of the people have nothing to do with the terrorist operations, the training, and a lot of these other problems we’ve got.”

“We may not have to go to war, and we may not have a disaster,” he said. “And my view is, no matter what [President Bush] says, you need to talk to everybody before you bomb them.” Watch it:

Digg It!

Transcript: Read more

Conservatives such as AEI’s Joshua Muravchik have argued that a targeted air strike “would not end Iran’s weapons program, but it would certainly delay it.” Similarly, former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton promoted the concept of air strikes, saying, “I don’t think the military option, with respect to the Iranian nuclear program, would involve forces on the ground. I think it would involve the destruction of the nuclear facilities. And that can be done in a variety of other ways.”

In a new study, the British-based Oxford Research Group reports that military strikes on Iran “could accelerate rather than halt Tehran’s production of atomic weapons.” “If Iran is moving towards a nuclear weapons capacity, it is doing so relatively slowly,” the report says. But in the report’s introduction, former chief U.N. weapons inspector Hans Blix warns that “armed attacks on Iran would very likely lead to the result they were meant to avoid — the building of nuclear weapons within a few years.” A key portion of the report:

If Iran’s nuclear facilities were severely damaged during an attack, it is possible that Iran could embark on a crash programme to make one nuclear weapon. In the aftermath of a military strike, if Iran devoted maximum effort and resources to building one nuclear bomb, it could achieve this in a relatively short amount of time: some months rather than years. The argument that military strikes would buy time is flawed. It does not take into account the time already available to pursue diplomacy; it inflates the likelihood of military success and underplays the possibility of hardened Iranian determination leading to a crash nuclear programme. Post military attacks, it is possible that Iran would be able to build a nuclear weapon and would then wield one in an environment of incalculably greater hostility.

It is a mistake to believe that Iran can be deterred from attaining a nuclear weapons capability by bombing its facilities, and presumably continuing to do so should Iran then reconstitute its programme.

The Washington Post reported last year that the administration was “studying options for military strikes against Iran.” Joint Chiefs Chairman Peter Pace “categorically” denied that the U.S. is planning for such operations. But media reports have indicated preparations for an air strike against Iran are reportedly “at an advanced stage, in spite of repeated public denials by the Bush administration.”

Digg It!

UPDATE: The Center for American Progress’s Iran strategy, “Contain and Engage,” notes, “After a U.S. military strike some countries might even decide that it is in their interests to help Iran acquire nuclear weapons. Russia, for instance, might regard U.S. military action in Iran as destabilizing and damaging to its national security and seek to counter U.S. power in the region by strengthening its relationship with Iran.”

The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee’s national security panel is holding hearings this morning on the neglect at Walter Reed military hospital.

They heard from Anne McLeod, wife of wounded Iraq veteran Cpl. Dell McLeod, who was profiled by the Washington Post. Dell “takes 23 pills a day, prescribed by various doctors at Walter Reed. Crowds frighten him. He is too anxious to drive,” and he can’t be left alone. “I don’t even know this man anymore,” his wife says. Yet Army doctors disputed that Dell’s head injury was the cause of his mental impairment, claiming he was slow in high school, and ended up giving him only a 50 percent disability rating (meaning he will receive only half of his base pay).

Today, Anne McLeod wept as she told the committee about her experience. “All I’m just trying to do is have my life, the life that I had and that I know. My life was ripped apart the day my husband was injured, and having to live through the mess that we lived through at Walter Reed has been worse than anything I have ever sacrificed in my life.” Watch it:

UPDATE: Jeffrey Feldman has more on McLeod’s testimony.

Transcript: Read more