Huffington Post has an article today about the possibility of a US military strike on Iran - it is a topic I have previously written about as well. You don't think it possible?
Republicans in the House of Representatives have introduced a measure that would green-light an Israeli bombing campaign against Iran.
H. RES. 1553
" Expressing support for the State of Israel’s right to defend Israeli sovereignty, to protect the lives and safety of the Israeli people, and to use all means necessary to confront and eliminate nuclear threats posed by the Islamic Republic of Iran, including the use of military force if no other peaceful solution can be found within reasonable time to protect against such an immediate and existential threat to the State of Israel."
A former CIA director says military action against Iran now seems more likely because no matter what the U.S. does diplomatically, Tehran keeps pushing ahead with its suspected nuclear program.
Instead of obsessing about celebrities (http://perezhilton.com/) we need to focus on this.
Michael Hayden, a CIA chief under President George W. Bush, says that during his tenure a strike was "way down the list" of options. But he tells CNN's "State of the Union" that such action now "seems inexorable."
He predicts Iran will build its program to the point where it's just below having an actual weapon. Hayden says that would be as destabilizing to the region as the real thing.
U.S. officials have said military action remains an option if sanctions fail to deter Iran.
Some people have maintained that this was always the end game in the Middle East as it explains the long term presence in Iraq and Afganistan ... a geopolitical strategy to "surround" Iran. They say just look at the map ... it helps explain a lot of decisions.