Bomb, bomb, bomb. Bomb bomb Iran.
Nuke, nuke, nuke. Nuke nuke Iran. Nuke Ira-a-an ...
Has Ahmadinejad Miscalculated?
The Iranian president better sober up and do some cool reckoning.
by Victor Davis Hanson, National Review Online
We are now acquainted with the familiar scenario: Iran is supposedly poised to become another disaster like Iraq. The United States, bruised in Iraq, needs redemption, and so will either press onto Teheran in its vainglorious imperial ambitions, or seek to direct attention away from Iraq by conjuring up another dragon to slay.
The Left further alleges that, once more, we favor preemption, wish to attack an Islamic country, will act unilaterally, and will sex up the intelligence to construct a casus belli about mythical “weapons of mass destruction.” The result is that the mere idea of preemption in Iran is just too messy even to contemplate, so we may end up timidly “outsourcing” the problem to others. That is the general critique of our Iranian policy.
Meanwhile, amid that conundrum, the Iranians are engaged in a three-part strategy to obtain nuclear weapons. ...
[...]
There are only two slight problems with this otherwise brilliant maneuvering: George Bush and the government of Israel.
[Read the whole thing here.]
Iran has been at war with the U.S. since 1979. Maybe it's time to start fighting back.
Set a large bowl of salt where you can reach it, remember what an "impeccable" source Seymour Hersh has always proven to be in the past, and check this out:
THE IRAN PLANS
Would President Bush go to war to stop Tehran from getting the bomb?
by Seymour M. Hersh
The Bush Administration, while publicly advocating diplomacy in order to stop Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapon, has increased clandestine activities inside Iran and intensified planning for a possible major air attack. Current and former American military and intelligence officials said that Air Force planning groups are drawing up lists of targets, and teams of American combat troops have been ordered into Iran, under cover, to collect targeting data and to establish contact with anti-government ethnic-minority groups. The officials say that President Bush is determined to deny the Iranian regime the opportunity to begin a pilot program, planned for this spring, to enrich uranium.
American and European intelligence agencies, and the International Atomic Energy Agency (I.A.E.A.), agree that Iran is intent on developing the capability to produce nuclear weapons. But there are widely differing estimates of how long that will take, and whether diplomacy, sanctions, or military action is the best way to prevent it. Iran insists that its research is for peaceful use only, in keeping with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, and that it will not be delayed or deterred.
[...]
A government consultant with close ties to the civilian leadership in the Pentagon said that Bush was “absolutely convinced that Iran is going to get the bomb” if it is not stopped. He said that the President believes that he must do “what no Democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the courage to do,” and “that saving Iran is going to be his legacy.”
[...]
One of the military’s initial option plans, as presented to the White House by the Pentagon this winter, calls for the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, against underground nuclear sites. ...
[Read the whole thing here.]
Keep that salt handy and read The Telegraph's enhanced version of the Hersh piece while you're at it:
Bush 'is planning nuclear strikes on Iran's secret sites'
By Philip Sherwell in Washington
The Bush administration is planning to use nuclear weapons against Iran, to prevent it acquiring its own atomic warheads, claims an investigative writer with high-level Pentagon and intelligence contacts.
President George W Bush is said to be so alarmed by the threat of Iran's hard-line leader, Mahmoud Ahmedinejad, that privately he refers to him as "the new Hitler", says Seymour Hersh, ...
Some US military chiefs have unsuccessfully urged the White House to drop the nuclear option from its war plans, Hersh writes in The New Yorker magazine. The conviction that Mr Ahmedinejad would attack Israel or US forces in the Middle East, if Iran obtains atomic weapons, is what drives American planning for the destruction of Teheran's nuclear programme.
Hersh claims that one of the plans, presented to the White House by the Pentagon, entails the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, against underground nuclear sites. ...
[Read on here.]
Kevin Drum:
As usual, Hersh's piece is based almost entirely on anonymous sources, so take it for what it's worth. But it warrants reading regardless. It may or may not be a bluff, but the PR campaign for an air strike against Iran is clearly moving into high gear.
JPH at RedState: Iran: Now We Know What Won't Happen
James Joyner:
Administration Gearing Up for Regime Change in Iran?
[...]
Hersh has been making these claims for well over a year now, so either he is on to something, obsessed, or both. Certainly, the administration has not done much to dispell the notion that they are prepared to use military force as a last option to prevent Iran’s less-than-stable government from acquiring nuclear weapons, a result that almost all agree would be unacceptable.
Still, as I have discussed numerous times (see the Related links below) there does not appear to be much propsect that an easy, Osirik-style military operation would be adequate to task. Regime change would certainly be required–and desirable if troops are put on the ground — but it might make the War on Iraq look like the Grenada operation by comparison.
There is, apparently, another option on the table:
[...]
And, just to make life more interesting:
The rise of the Islamist axis
Caroline B. Glick
On Monday, Russia's Novaya Gazeta newspaper reported that part of Ukraine's Soviet-era nuclear arsenal may well have found its way to Iran. With the breakup of the Soviet Union, the Ukrainians agreed to transfer the Soviet nuclear arsenal that remained in Ukraine after its independence to Russia. According to Novaya Gazeta, some 250 nuclear warheads never made it to Russia and are thought to have been sent to Iran instead. The report further noted that the warheads will remain operational until 2010.
Responding to the report, Gen. Yuri Baluyevsky, Russia's deputy defense minister and the chief of General Staff said, "Russia's General Staff has no information about whether Ukraine has given 250 nuclear warheads to Iran or not."
[Read on here.]
The Real Ugly American:
Would President Bush go to war to stop Tehran from getting the bomb?
Seymour Hersh asks that question in his New Yorker article titled THE IRAN PLANS.
The short answer is YES.
Of course Mr. Hersh writes for a living so he takes several pages to explain to the completely dim witted what is obvious to any rational person. ...
[...]
Curt at Flopping Aces:
The Iranian Battle Plan II
[...]
So you can get the gist of the article. Conservatives bad, Liberals good….mmmmkay. Conservatives only want war, the liberals are peace seekers and will protect the world because war is not the answer. Liberals can bring Iran to the table because they will hug Hitler Jr. Give him a flower maybe. Offer him a bowl hit.
The left is ready and willing to capitulate, as usual. “Come on man, we have nukes so who are we to tell Hitler Jr. he can’t have one….dude.”
[...]
Stop The ACLU has an excellent take on the subject here, as does Atlas Shrugs here.
Dr. Sanity:
THE IRANIAN CIRCLE GAME
Yesterday ElBaradei was wondering
If the IAEA had a clue;
Fearful 'cause the mullahs all were thundering
That Islam had to have a nuke or two.
[...]
OK, nobody really wants to see another war, especially not one fought with nuclear weapons. Trouble is, sometimes you don't have any good choices and I'd much rather see a mushroom cloud over Tehran than Ft. Worth. I voted for George Bush because I knew he'd do a better job of keeping my daughter and grandson safe from the jihadis than that other idiot would have. I don't expect to see him let Iran get nukes and I don't expect to see him leave the Iranian problem for someone else to deal with, or not deal with, when he leaves office. Short of the Iranian people rising up and throwing out their jihadi government I just can't see any hope for a peaceful solution to this.
*** Update:
DOES IRAN WANT WAR
Ralph Peters
THE most dangerous error we could make in our sharpening confronta tion with Iran is to con vince ourselves that its leaders will act rationally. Few wars are rooted in dispassionate analysis. Self-delusion sparks most such catastrophes.
The power brokers in Tehran may be on the verge of misjudging America's will and resources as profoundly as did the Japanese on Dec. 7, 1941, or al Qaeda on Sept. 11, 2001.
[...]
The crucial question is whether the Iranians are still playing at brinksmanship, hoping to spook us into passivity as they build nuclear weapons, or if they've already convinced themselves that a conflict with the United States is inevitable.
Given the closed nature of Iran's ruling clique, it's impossible to know. The most-probable situation is that differing factions within the leadership are at different stages of willingness for war, with some ready to fight and others fearful. Cooler heads may prevail - but "cooler heads" is a relative term in Tehran.
[...]
The most worrisome possibility is that they may have convinced themselves they can win.
[...]
We pulled too many punches in Operation Iraqi Freedom, and now we're paying the price. If Tehran drags us into war, we should make the conflict so devastating and painful that even our allies are stunned
See also: Dan Riehl: Going Nuclear - So Much For Progress
Rick Moran: The Media And The Left Go Nuclear
*** 2006.04.09 PM Updates:
Don't miss Greyhawk's latest Open Post.
Michelle Malkin: Sy Hersh: Blowing U.S. Cover
Austin Bay: Does Iran Want War?
***
A Blog For All: The Iran Calculus
***
Don't miss Papa Ray's link-rich comment.
|
