Stop Using “Woman in Chador Walks by Anti-US Mural” Stock Photo for Every Article About Iran
by Adam Johnson The general mindlessness in choosing a stock photo is what makes...
Published on September 13th, 2012 | by Jasmin Ramsey0
Weighing Benefits and Costs of Military Action Against Iran
The newly released Iran Project report which I’ve summarized below and which has received widespread coverage in prominent mainstream publications including the Associated Press, the Wall Street Journal and Haaertz, can be read in full here.
The accompanying letter and list of endorsing bipartisan, high-level national security advisers — all of whom one of the reports’ presenters Ambassador Thomas R. Pickering noted today, “had their say” about the report before publication — can be found in the first pages.
The signatories include Brent Scowcroft, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Richard L. Armitage, Col. Lawrence B. Wilkerson, Chuck Hagel, Gen .Anthony C. Zinni, Leslie H. Gelb, Lee H. Hamilton, Ellen Laipson, Adm. William Fallon, Amb. Thomas R. Pickering, Amb. William Luers, and others. According to the National Security Network, “Other analysts have recently sounded the same alarm” about the lacking public discussion regarding the benefits and costs of militarily attacking Iran and “While the Iran Project report explicitly does not make policy recommendations, CSIS’s Anthony Cordesman concludes in his recent study, “The best way out is successful negotiations.”