Consequences have always been Washington's Peck's bad boy. He's usually sent to stand in a corner for saying naughty words. His latest infraction: What would happen if the U.S. or Israel attacked Iran?

In a political enclave where short-sightedness is a virtue, this question is only whispered. What is said aloud by both sides of the political aisle is “all options are on the table.” That “all options” is Washington-speak for an all-out air strike against Iran.

Predicting the consequences for adding Iran to the U.S. bombing list isn't too difficult; we've been there before; just to the left of Iran is Iraq.

Before invading Iraq we should have asked a few basic questions: Suppose the Iraqis don't appreciate having their nation blitzed? What if they don't take kindly to strangers in uniforms? Will religious and ethnic factions among the Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds erupt into civic chaos? What would be a worst-case cost in lives and money? Could such an attack affect the U.S. economy?

Yes, we should have asked some basic what-if questions, but we didn't.

Instead there were dire warnings that prodded the U.S. into premature action. Immediate military intervention was necessary according to then Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice: “There will always be some uncertainty [about attacking Iraq] but we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.”

“Uncertainty?” But better safe than sorry, according to Condi. Well, now we're not safe and sorry.

Once again the rush to war begins this time with Iran. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) was purple-veined: “The U.S. should consider sinking the Iranian navy, destroying its air force and delivering a decisive blow to the Revolutionary Guard.” Bravo, Senator.

John Bolton, former ambassador to the UN, has been cheer leading for a war with Iran since 2003. He has argued for almost a decade that a nuclear armed Iran is imminent. He hasn't explained why it hasn't happened yet.

Presidential front runner Gov. Rick Perry fumed, “We cannot afford to allow that madman in Iran to get his hands on a nuclear weapon - period - even if it started a war in the region.” But who's the “madman,” Rick?

Gen. Jack Keane is admirably visceral: “I'm saying we put our hand [sic.] around their throat.” Grrrrr.

A document issued by the U.S. Energy Information Administration was more restrained: “[The military] should destroy Iranian refineries. That would eliminate 90 percent of diesel consumption.”

But eliminating the fuel that powers the electrical grid of Iran might not be greeted with shouts of “Hurray, we have no electricity.”

The Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu’s advocates a robust response. He is concerned about the President of Iran Mahmoud Ahmadinejad call for the “annihilation of Israel's Zionist regime.” Not quite, Bibi.

Admadinejad wants an end to the Zionist regime, not Israel. There's a difference. For example, if one wants to end the Obama regime is he advocating the annihilation of the U.S.? Hardly. Incidentally, Iran hosts the largest Jewish population of any Muslin nation.

Israel's president, Shimon Peres, said that “the possibility of a military attack against Iran is now closer than a diplomatic option.” Closer, indeed.

Operation Glorious Spartan was the code name for an Israeli Air Force exercise in which one hundred fighter jets rehearsed for a distant thousand-mile bombing run on Iran's nuclear sites.

The short-term consequences of a take-out of Iran's nuclear facilities are predictable.

First, 40 percent of the world's oil supply passes through the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow passage that boarders Iran. Insurance rates on oil tankers passing through the strait would go stratospheric as would the price of petroleum. If Iran succeeded in blocking the strait's one-mile wide ship lane - an all too real possibility - the result would be worldwide economic calamity.

Second, Iran's nuclear plants are dispersed, not fully identified, and in A-bomb-proof shelters 300-feet underground. The attack would only set its presumed bomb-building program back a year or two. If Iran didn't have a nuclear weapons' program, it would now.

Third, the nation of 70 million would be galvanized and united against the attackers. A land attack and subsequent occupation would be both necessary and impossible.

Fourth, worldwide reaction among Muslims on still another assault on a brother nation would be more terror attacks.

Fifth, a successful bunker-busting bombardment would cloud the land with a drifting fog of radioactive dust. Civilian causalities were be enormous.

What about the long-term consequences? Think of Iraq multiplied by 10 or 100 or 1,000.

But never mind that bad boy in the corner, “All options on are the table.”

Sincerely,

Bob Scroggins

New Milford, PA