Why the US doesn't want Iran to have the 'Bomb'

[formercia]

The 'Islamic Bomb' has been a bete noir for US Diplomats for many years. We have a situation where one of our major allies in the Islamic World already has a nuclear arsenal and has been involved in nuclear weapons proliferation, yet we continue to deal with Pakistan as if nothing ever happened. Iran, on the other hand, has only been engaged in Uranium enrichment, supposedly for peaceful uses, yet the Bush administration seem apoplectic over the thought of the Iranians even remotely coming close to producing weapons-grade Uranium.
The president's recent trip to India has muddled the waters even more by agreeing to provide nuclear fuel to a country that has refused to sign the Non-proliferation treaty. So, where is the bone of contention that makes this Administration engage in such schizophrenic behavior?

Iran is a predominately Shia country, and the thought of a 'Shia Bomb' must make Sunni Islamic governments shake in their sandals.

[Norquist Nemesis]

1. Location, Location, Location!

Think about it.

[maveric]

3. Given Iran's geography/neighbors, I cant blame them for wanting nukes.

They border Russia and Pakistan, both with nukes and are near India, China, Israel, N. Korea and the US presence in the ME.

They just want to keep up with the "Joneses', IMHO.

[Norquist Nemesis]

6. Can't blame them either

But as far as the US saying no it's not as much of a threat to this land as a direct threat to Israel, IMHO.

[phoebe]

2. if the US didn't want Iran to have the bomb then why were they busy

selling components, along with arms to them, since the 70's..

[formercia]

4. Just combining business with pleasure.

Halliburton never misses an opportunity to make a buck.

[warrens]

5. I don't think anyone wants to see Iran with the bomb

Pakistan and North Korea are bad enough, and supposedly the Saudis are hard at work.

[phoebe]

7. Anyone else heard of CONPLAN 8022? Entire article is VERY informative

A high-risk game of nuclear chicken
By F William Engdahl

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HA31Ak02.html

snip

Conplan 8022
In January 2003, Bush signed a classified presidential directive, Conplan 8022-02. This is a war plan different from all prior in that it posits "no ground troops". It was specifically drafted to deal with "imminent" threats from states such as North Korea and Iran.

Unlike the warplan for Iraq, a conventional one, which required coordinated preparation of air, ground and sea forces before it could be launched, a process of months, even years, Conplan 8022 called for a highly concentrated strike combining bombing with electronic warfare and cyberattacks to cripple an opponent's response-cutting electricity in the country, jamming communications and hacking computer networks.

Conplan 8022 explicitly includes a nuclear option, specially configured earth-penetrating "mini" nukes to hit underground sites such as Iran's. Last summer, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld approved a top secret "Interim Global Strike Alert Order" directing around-the-clock military readiness to be directed by the Omaha-based Strategic Command (Stratcom), according to a report in the May 15 Washington Post.

Previously, ominously enough, Stratcom oversaw only the US nuclear forces. In January 2003, Bush signed on to a definition of "full spectrum global strike", which included precision nuclear as well as conventional bombs, and space warfare. This was a follow-up to the president's September 2002 National Security Strategy, which laid out as US strategic doctrine a policy of "preemptive" wars.

The burning question is whether, with plunging popularity polls, a coming national election, scandals and loss of influence, the Bush White House might "think the unthinkable" and order a nuclear preemptive global strike on Iran before the November elections, perhaps early after the March 28 Israeli elections.

Some Pentagon analysts have suggested that the entire US strategy towards Iran, unlike with Iraq, is rather a carefully orchestrated escalation of psychological pressure and bluff to force Iran to back down. It seems clear, especially in light of the strategic threat Iran faces from US or Israeli forces on its borders after 2003, that Iran is not likely to back down from its clear plans to develop full nuclear fuel cycle capacities, and with it the option of developing an Iranian nuclear capability.

[harpo]

8. wow, thanks for sharing