Some bunk

Iran and nearby U.S. bases

"I'm one who believes that Iran getting a nuclear weapon is calamitous for the region and for the world," Mullen, chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee. "It then, in my view, generates neighbors who feel exposed, deficient and then develop or buy the capability themselves," he said, suggesting Iran's acquisition of a nuclear weapon likely would trigger a nuclear arms race in the Middle East. "The downside, potentially, is absolutely disastrous." But Mullen did not suggest the United States should take military action to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. He echoed the Obama administration's policy that big powers should work together to persuade Iran not to pursue a nuclear bomb and halt the proliferation of nuclear weapons generally. "Major leaders, internationally, have got to come together to arrest this growth or the long-term downside for the people in the world is really, really tragic and drastic," he said.

(Admiral Mike Mullen's remarks came the day after Iran's president announced the country had tested a missile that analysts said could hit Israel and US bases in the Gulf, a major source of crude oil for the United States....)

Extract from: US military chief says Iran nuclear bomb would be 'calamitous.'

OK, blah, blah... fairly useless statement, filled with ' sound and fury, signifying nothing.' The sound and fury - 'calamitous', ' absolutely disastrous', 'tragic', 'drastic', etc., and the nothing - no clear reasons why these would correctly describe the outcome. The only glimmer of an adverse consequence, an arms race in the Middle East. However, one could as easily argue that this is a consequence of existing factors (Israel's nuclear weapons; N. Korea's ownership of the same, invasion of Iraq, etc.)

Oh, does Iran really need a long-range missile to reach "U.S. bases in the Gulf'? Rhetorical question: see map above for the answer...