Dropping nukes no way to 'save' Iran, Guardian/UK

[TexasLawyer]

Comment

Why dropping nukes may not be the best way for President Bush to 'save' Iran - or secure his place in history

Stuart Jeffries
Monday April 10, 2006
The Guardian

First the good news. Britain is unlikely to participate in the nuclear bombing of Iranian atomic weapons research facilities. Instead, our role in any forthcoming nuclear blitz will be to fill the blogosphere with sarcastic posts and make tut-tutting noises. The latter may or may not be heard above B61-11s slamming nukes into Iran's Natanz centrifuge plant, which is challengingly located 75ft below ground.

Guessed the bad news? That's right, the White House is considering nuking Iran. According to a forthcoming article by Seymour Hersh in the New Yorker, President Bush reckons that "saving Iran is going to be his legacy". Not, then, the bang-up job he did next door. Nor the visionary way he mopped up New Orleans.

(Incidentally, a new survey from Clerkenwell University (ie, me) concludes that the new trend in politicians seeking legacies is a bad one, geopolitically speaking. It recommends that leaders should consider ensuring their place in history in other ways. They should have, say, tea roses named after them rather than securing immortality by planting a mushroom cloud 200 miles south of Tehran. Just a thought.)

But is this really bad news? I have amazingly few Pentagon contacts, but one leading Stateside militarist rang yesterday to explain the strategy. He said: "Shut your liberal cryhole, you pussy-assed, aesthetically challenged denizen of a rain-soaked dime of a country, sir!" By which I took him to mean that a surgical strike on Natanz would be a feasible option and one that would have the defensible aim of stopping President Ahmadinejad using nuclear weapons to wipe Israel off the map.

<snip>

http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,,1750517,00.html

[Syrinx]

1. would Congress impeach?

I mean if Bush launched an unprovoked nuclear attack on a sovereign country, surely even the Republicans would rise up in outrage. Right?

[juliana24]

2. No I dont think they would. Not anymore.

[Benbow]

5. Congress would not have time - Washington would be vapourised

by North Korea within hours of your President's nuclear bomb being dropped on Iran.

Bye.

[yurbud]

8. if it is good for their corporate donors it is good for them

unfortunately, the same is true for a sizable chunk of the Democrats too.

[shenmue]

3. We have *no* reason to go into Iran

Dammit.

:grr:

Crazy ass.

[dipsydoodle]

4. Now headline news

For example see : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/default.stm

Same applies to radio news - first subject mentioned.

[Benbow]

6. I'm in the UK, too - and I read this as the British authorities starting

to prepare UK citizens for the US dropping a nuclear bomb on Iran. Until now, the BBC has glossed over Bush's inanity - reading DU makes one realise how much the BBC has been having to do to make Bush look even normal.

[Benbow]

7. Gad, you're right - it's the top story on every hourly radio news bulletin

The Government must think that it can't do anything now to stop the mad fundamentalists who run the US nuking Iran.

Note to self: check bottled water supplies, torch and radio batteries. If the US nukes Iran, North Korea will nuke Washington, the price of oil will sky-rocket, the supermarkets will run out of everything.

[Benbow]

9. "Crude oil prices have hit record levels in London" (BBC)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4898196.stm