Experts dump cold water on 'massive' Trump attack rumors: coverage across Left, Center, and Right

Lead summary from Alternet.org

Amid swirling rumors that President Donald Trump and his administration are plotting a "massive" renewed military assault on Iran, experts who spoke with The Hill dumped cold water on the idea, warning that such a thing likely would not be enough to subdue Iran.In a report published Saturday morning, The Hill cited conversations with various foreign affairs and defense experts who warned about the efficacy of "an intensified air strike campaign" against Iran, even one that might, as Trump has threatened repeatedly, target "bridges, water facilities and electricity plants." They warned that even this sort of plan would not be enough to extract major concessions from Iran in the ongoing peace talks.“I don’t think it will change Iran’s calculation in any way, because from Iran’s perspective, this is when they said it publicly, that this is a war of survival for them. So bombing from the air is not going to change Iran’s calculation, even if the U.S. intensifies it,” Sina Azodi, director of the Middle East Studies Program at George Washington University, told the outlet. “The only thing that will happen is that, first of all, the entire region is going to suffer more. The Iranians have made it very clear. I think it destroys any chance of diplomacy.” He added: "You can’t just do a ceasefire. You need a comprehensive agreement that it’s language is no longer open to interpretation. And quite frankly, U.S. has to, when it makes a commitment, it needs to abide by it."Another source, described as an anonymous "former senior U.S. defense official, told The Hill that airstrikes are unlikely to yield any meaningful progress, and argued that it would be impossible "without collectively enforcing the naval blockade, securing to some degree the traffic going through the Strait of Hormuz and absorbing some of the international economic cost as a long-term strategy.""But you’re not going to bomb yourself into a ceasefire," they said. "I think you’ve got to be able to put the economic instrument of power just as make it just as significant as what you’re doing [militarily]."Michael “Mick” Mulroy, a former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the Middle East, also cast doubt on the efficacy of heavy airstrikes, but also noted that the options left to the U.S. at this point "aren’t good.""If we allow them to sell their oil, if we unfreeze assets, they’re going to use it to rebuild those capacities potentially faster than we really rebuild the precision munitions and interceptors that we use during a conflict, and we have to get into a new nuclear agreement," Mulroy explained. "If we don’t, then this, at least from the nuclear side, would be a perpetual conflict, because the other way of preventing them from ever getting a nuclear weapon is to periodically target the facilities that are making the potential nuclear weapon. So the options are not good.”