The coming clash with Iran
Pat Buchanan: Why did Trump and Flynn feel the need to threaten Tehran now?
When Gen. Michael Flynn marched into the White House Briefing Room to declare that “we are officially putting Iran on notice,” he drew a red line for President Trump. In tweeting the threat, Trump agreed.
His credibility is now on the line.
And what triggered this virtual ultimatum?
Iran-backed Houthi rebels, said Flynn, attacked a Saudi warship, and Tehran tested a missile, undermining “security, prosperity and stability throughout the Middle East,” placing “American lives at risk.”
But how so?
The Saudis have been bombing the Houthi rebels and ravaging their country, Yemen, for two years. Are the Saudis entitled to immunity from retaliation in wars they start?
Where is the evidence Iran had a role in the Red Sea attack on the Saudi ship? And why would President Trump make this war his war?
As for the Iranian missile test, a 2015 U.N. resolution “called upon” Iran not to test nuclear-capable missiles. It did not forbid Iran from testing conventional missiles, which Tehran insists this was.
Is the United States making new demands on Iran not written into the nuclear treaty or international law – to provoke a confrontation?
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2017/02/the-coming-clash-with-iran/#FDVZog3ddhWQHSQm.99
Buchanan is being in a sense melodramatic but this is probably important to say.
Iran is too big. Other than sanctions, I don't know. PB makes some good points nonetheless.
