Nuking Iran

[Flabbergasted]

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=67&ItemID=10071


Foaad Khosmood: In the April 17 issue of New Yorker Magazine Seymour Hersh has an eye-opening piece that quotes Administration insiders who suggest nuclear war with Iran is a serious option. You had written back in October of 2005 that "The strategic decision by the United States to nuke Iran was probably made long ago." What led you to that conclusion at that time? What do you think of the Hersh piece?

Jorge Hirsch: Of course the Hersh piece is extremely useful in bringing this issue to the forefront of public attention. However already several months ago an analysis of the facts led me to the conviction that a deliberate decision had been made to use nuclear weapons against Iran. First, the US pursuit over several years to get an IAEA resolution against Iran, no matter how weak, which it finally achieved in September 2005. It didn't make any sense as a diplomatic move if the goal was to exert pressure on Iran, in view of the clear dissent by Russia and China. It had two purposes: one was to bring the issue eventually to the UN Security Council, even knowing that Russia and China would veto any action against Iran, so that, just as in the case of Iraq, the US could argue that other countries share its concern but not the resolve to act. But more importantly, the US issued a commitment to the UN in 1995 that it wouldn't use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear countries signatories of the NPT, which however explicitly excluded countries that are in "non-compliance" with the NPT. So by securing the IAEA resolution of September 2005 of Iran's "non-compliance" the US achieved that it can now use nuclear weapons against Iran "legally", i.e. without violating its 1995 commitment. This explains why it was pushing for it so adamantly.

Furthermore the US has radically changed its nuclear weapons policies since 2001 to erase the sharp line that traditionally existed between nuclear and non-nuclear weapons. It now "integrates" both types of weapons in its military strategy, and envisions the use of nuclear weapons against underground facilities, preemptively against countries "intending" to use WMD's against US forces, and "for rapid and favorable war termination on US terms". Several scenarios like that, that apply specifically to the Iran scenario, were made public in 2005 in the Pentagon draft document "Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations", to prepare the country for what was being planned.

Furthermore, the administration has been pushing Congress every year to fund new nuclear weapons, "more usable" nuclear weapons, and bunker busting nuclear weapons, to prepare the public mind for the attack. Many are under the mistaken impression that Congress has resisted these efforts, however they forget or don't know that the B61-11, a bunker-buster that can be used against Iranian underground facilities, is in the US arsenal since 2001. Its yield (power) is classified but is likely to include very low yield, to cause "reduced collateral damage" and thus be more "acceptable".

more.....

[electropop]

1. Bush is going to roast us all in Hell.

May he get there first.

[AusGail]

8. He'll be the only one left

Doesn't he have his own bunker?

[Flabbergasted]

2. FKh: Is a war with Iran now inevitable? Is a nuclear war inevitable?

JH: If there is an aerial bombing of Iran, I believe it is inevitable it will go nuclear. The intention is there, the advisors are there, the nuclear policies and the weapons are there. The excuses to make it "acceptable" to the American public are there. The President has sole authority to order the use of nuclear weapons, Congress has no say. The chain of command doesn't go through the Joint Chiefs of Staff that may oppose it as Hersh mentions: it goes directly from Bush and Rumsfeld to commanders of the Unified Combatant Commands such as Gen. Abizaid and Gen. Cartwright. Unless those individuals disobey orders, there is no way to stop it.


Same article

[TallahasseeGrannie]

3. This country will go nuts

if our armed forces use nuclear weapons in Iran. We will stream into the streets. We will not go to work. We will not buy gas. We will go freaking nuts. They have NO IDEA.

[Flabbergasted]

4. I doubt it.....Only if people don't have a job or are forced to go into

military service.....

[TallahasseeGrannie]

5. Well I'll be alone, then

but I'm going to be out there screaming and banging pots and pans. I will never support this country again if they nuke anyone.

[Flabbergasted]

6. Its so sick and yet entirely likely. I read an article in CFR saying that

instead of Mutually Assured Destruction like we had in the Cold War, the US with 10,000 warheads can destroy any control in the world in a surprise attack. We cannot stand having another rival ever again.

[TallahasseeGrannie]

7. God forgive us.

T-Grannie

[Sooner75]

9. The political cartoon in my head......

Bush stung about 100 times next to a hornet's nest marked "Iraq" and about to swing a baseball bat at a MUCH bigger hornet's nest marked "Iran."

On the radio, I heard someone say that if attacked Iran WILL retaliate. Bet on it. They'll stir up the Shiites in Iraq and arm and train them. They may strike Israel. They may work on a strike on the US a la 911. Iraq is a divided country with Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds. Iran is something else again. Much more unified behind a radical theocracy (ironic, no?). Our military is already stressed out by the protracted, no win situation in Iraq. They don't need to add Iran to the burden. If we attack Iran, it's an act of war. Iran will mobilize and strike back. THEY may invade Iraq! Anyone want to see us hastily bug out of Baghdad the way we did during the fall of Saigon? I don't. Do you?

How far down this road do we have to go with these tinhorn, dickweed warmongers? Can we make it to January 2009 when this Bush Administration finally bows out?