Iranian themed news articles
Iran Hopes IAEA Visit Will Ease Tensions
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- Five U.N weapons inspectors arrived in Iran to visit uranium enrichment and reprocessing plants, Iranian media reported Saturday -- a visit Iran hoped would prove its nuclear intentions are peaceful.
The visit by the inspectors for the International Atomic Energy Agency was the first since Iran announced in mid-February that it was suspending surprise inspections and removing agency cameras from some nuclear facilities.
Iran's deputy nuclear chief, Mohammed Saeedi, said the inspectors would begin their work at the Isfahan Uranium Conversion Facility in central Iran on Sunday, followed by a visit to the Natanz uranium enrichment plant....
NYT
I have to say at this point that one of my collegues is Iranian : he came to France at the start of the Iraq/Iran war in 1980 and he still has family and friends over there.
For evident reasons we both are alarmed about the way this whole situation is being portrayed by the 'traditional' press ... i'm particulary galled when i read headlines in 'quality' news papers, like The Guardian and The Indy, who never fail to say 'The Iranian Nuke project'.
Let's be clear : every country has the inalienable right to explore nuclear energy technology - every country, not just a chosen few, not just white skinned populated countries... there is a framework to do this, there are checks and balances such as this One (I'm not here to give N.P.T lessons - go to the link, Wikipedia is really very good).
Yes countries can and do 'opt-out' (you know who you are, you there, at the back of the class), yes there is/has been a black market for aquiring materials and yes the current geo-pol situation is looking particularly dire.
Things are dire because we don't have adults in charge any more (have we ever ?) and when kiddies rule the roost, every one acquieses to the bully ... at least they do at first, but after a while, as we know, the worm will turn ... he usually turns to someone with a big stick to help defend him.
So, with this analogy in mind is it really so surprising, what with Iran's neighbourhood being what it is, that they might consider 'tooling up' ... Can we blame them ? ... I'm sure if you live in the Bronx you've got at least a car jack in the glove compartement.
Self defense is a given for anybody - especially when confronted by a bully with a penchant for pre-emption (yeah, you know who you are too, you).
The logic would seem to have it as follows:
Bully "oi, you, don'cha even be thinking about getting near any trees ... 'cos i'll do ya"
Wimp " bbbut ?? ... what are you on about ?"
Bully " I saw ya ... just watch it ... or i might do you anyway, just for fun ... mwouahahahaha"
Wimp" *gulp*"
(Bully speaks like Michael Cane in 'Get Carter' , Wimp speaks like Woody Allen in ... euhh ... any of his films)
The scene switches to the Wimps' bedroom where we see him logging onto e-bay for a nice shiny, brand new bestest-ever willow cricket bat signed by Tendulkar... as sold to him by the Bully ... only the signature's a fake and the handle's a bit dodgy.
The Bully can now justifiably act in pre-emptive self defense.
Thats kinda neat, i think.
Although ... it's not soooo neat in the real world ...
Article 1:
The Rise of U.S. Nuclear Primacy
Summary:
For four decades, relations among the major nuclear powers have been shaped by their common vulnerability, a condition known as mutual assured destruction.
But with the U.S. arsenal growing rapidly while Russia's decays and China's stays small, the era of MAD is ending and the era of U.S. nuclear primacy has begun.
PRESENT AT THE DESTRUCTION
For almost half a century, the world's most powerful nuclear states have been locked in a military stalemate known as mutual assured destruction (MAD).
By the early 1960s, the nuclear arsenals of the United States and the Soviet Union had grown so large and sophisticated that neither country could entirely destroy the other's retaliatory force by launching first, even with a surprise attack.
Starting a nuclear war was therefore tantamount to committing suicide.
During the Cold War, many scholars and policy analysts believed that MAD made the world relatively stable and peaceful because it induced great caution in international politics, discouraged the use of nuclear threats to resolve disputes, and generally restrained the superpowers' behavior.
(Revealingly, the last intense nuclear standoff, the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, occurred at the dawn of the era of MAD.)
Because of the nuclear stalemate, the optimists argued, the era of intentional great power wars had ended.
Critics of MAD, however, argued that it prevented not great-power war but the rolling back of the power and influence of a dangerously expansionist and totalitarian Soviet Union.
From that perspective, MAD prolonged the life of an evil empire.
This debate may now seem like ancient history, but it is actually more relevant than ever because the age of MAD is nearing an end.
Today, for the first time in almost 50 years, the United States stands on the verge of attaining nuclear primacy.
It will probably soon be possible for the United States to destroy the long-range nuclear arsenals of Russia or China with a first strike.
This dramatic shift in the nuclear balance of power stems from a series of improvements in the United States' nuclear systems, the precipitous decline of Russia's arsenal, and the glacial pace of modernization of China's nuclear forces.
Unless Washington's policies change or Moscow and Beijing take steps to increase the size and readiness of their forces, Russia and China - and the rest of the world - will live in the shadow of U.S. nuclear primacy for many years to come.
One's views on the implications of this change will depend on one's theoretical perspective. Hawks, who believe that the United States is a benevolent force in the world, will welcome the new nuclear era because they trust that U.S. dominance in both conventional and nuclear weapons will help deter aggression by other countries.
For example, as U.S. nuclear primacy grows, China's leaders may act more cautiously on issues such as Taiwan, realizing that their vulnerable nuclear forces will not deter U.S. intervention - and that Chinese nuclear threats could invite a U.S. strike on Beijing's arsenal.
But doves, who oppose using nuclear threats to coerce other states and fear an emboldened and unconstrained United States, will worry.
Nuclear primacy might lure Washington into more aggressive behavior, they argue, especially when combined with U.S. dominance in so many other dimensions of national power.
Finally, a third group - owls, who worry about the possibility of inadvertent conflict - will fret that U.S. nuclear primacy could prompt other nuclear powers to adopt strategic postures, such as by giving control of nuclear weapons to lower-level commanders, that would make an unauthorized nuclear strike more likely - thereby creating what strategic theorists call "crisis instability."
(snip - it's 4 pages long)
foreignaffairs.org
So, there we have it; an influential think tank (along the lines of this one ) openly advocating, or rather, pleading for the use of the biggest stick of them all.
Stuff like this - and it's not even your typical kinda conspiracy/mumbo-jumbo stuff - that really frightens the beejebus outta me.
And it's not finished ... one of the first people to highlight the Abu Grhaïb story was Seymore Hersh.
This week he does it again :
Article 2 :
THE IRAN PLANS
Would President Bush go to war to stop Tehran from getting the bomb?
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.
(snip)
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 former defense official, who still deals with sensitive issues for the Bush Administration, told me that the military planning was premised on a belief that “a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government.”
He added, “I was shocked when I heard it, and asked myself, ‘What are they smoking?’ ”
(snip)
One military planner told me that White House criticisms of Iran and the high tempo of planning and clandestine activities amount to a campaign of “coercion” aimed at Iran.
“You have to be ready to go, and we’ll see how they respond,” the officer said. “You have to really show a threat in order to get Ahmadinejad to back down.” He added, “People think Bush has been focussed on Saddam Hussein since 9/11,” but, “in my view, if you had to name one nation that was his focus all the way along, it was Iran.”
(In response to detailed requests for comment, the White House said that it would not comment on military planning but added, “As the President has indicated, we are pursuing a diplomatic solution”; the Defense Department also said that Iran was being dealt with through “diplomatic channels” but wouldn’t elaborate on that; the C.I.A. said that there were “inaccuracies” in this account but would not specify them.)
“This is much more than a nuclear issue,” one high-ranking diplomat told me in Vienna.
“That’s just a rallying point, and there is still time to fix it. But the Administration believes it cannot be fixed unless they control the hearts and minds of Iran. The real issue is who is going to control the Middle East and its oil in the next ten years.”
(snip)
Some operations, apparently aimed in part at intimidating Iran, are already under way. American Naval tactical aircraft, operating from carriers in the Arabian Sea, have been flying simulated nuclear-weapons delivery missions—rapid ascending maneuvers known as “over the shoulder” bombing—since last summer, the former official said, within range of Iranian coastal radars.
(snip)
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.
One target is Iran’s main centrifuge plant, at Natanz, nearly two hundred miles south of Tehran.
Natanz, which is no longer under I.A.E.A. safeguards, reportedly has underground floor space to hold fifty thousand centrifuges, and laboratories and workspaces buried approximately seventy-five feet beneath the surface...
(snip)
The lack of reliable intelligence leaves military planners, given the goal of totally destroying the sites, little choice but to consider the use of tactical nuclear weapons. “Every other option, in the view of the nuclear weaponeers, would leave a gap,” the former senior intelligence official said. “ ‘Decisive’ is the key word of the Air Force’s planning. It’s a tough decision. But we made it in Japan.”
He went on, “Nuclear planners go through extensive training and learn the technical details of damage and fallout—we’re talking about mushroom clouds, radiation, mass casualties, and contamination over years.
This is not an underground nuclear test, where all you see is the earth raised a little bit. These politicians don’t have a clue, and whenever anybody tries to get it out”—remove the nuclear option—“they’re shouted down.”
(snip)
The attention given to the nuclear option has created serious misgivings inside the offices of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he added, and some officers have talked about resigning.
Late this winter, the Joint Chiefs of Staff sought to remove the nuclear option from the evolving war plans for Iran—without success, the former intelligence official said. “The White House said, ‘Why are you challenging this? The option came from you.’
The Pentagon adviser on the war on terror confirmed that some in the Administration were looking seriously at this option, which he linked to a resurgence of interest in tactical nuclear weapons among Pentagon civilians and in policy circles.
He called it “a juggernaut that has to be stopped.” He also confirmed that some senior officers and officials were considering resigning over the issue.
“There are very strong sentiments within the military against brandishing nuclear weapons against other countries,” the adviser told me. “This goes to high levels.”
The matter may soon reach a decisive point, he said, because the Joint Chiefs had agreed to give President Bush a formal recommendation stating that they are strongly opposed to considering the nuclear option for Iran. “The internal debate on this has hardened in recent weeks,” the adviser said. “And, if senior Pentagon officers express their opposition to the use of offensive nuclear weapons, then it will never happen.”
(snip)
Michel Samaha, a veteran Lebanese Christian politician and former cabinet minister in Beirut, told me that the Iranian retaliation might be focussed on exposed oil and gas fields in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates. “They would be at risk,” he said, “and this could begin the real jihad of Iran versus the West. You will have a messy world.”
Iran could also initiate a wave of terror attacks in Iraq and elsewhere, with the help of Hezbollah.
On April 2nd, the Washington Post reported that the planning to counter such attacks “is consuming a lot of time” at U.S. intelligence agencies.
“The best terror network in the world has remained neutral in the terror war for the past several years,” the Pentagon adviser on the war on terror said of Hezbollah.
“This will mobilize them and put us up against the group that drove Israel out of southern Lebanon. If we move against Iran, Hezbollah will not sit on the sidelines.
Unless the Israelis take them out, they will mobilize against us.” (When I asked the government consultant about that possibility, he said that, if Hezbollah fired rockets into northern Israel, “Israel and the new Lebanese government will finish them off.”)
The adviser went on, “If we go, the southern half of Iraq will light up like a candle.”
The American, British, and other coalition forces in Iraq would be at greater risk of attack from Iranian troops or from Shiite militias operating on instructions from Iran.
(Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, has close ties to the leading Shiite parties in Iraq.)
A retired four-star general told me that, despite the eight thousand British troops in the region, “the Iranians could take Basra with ten mullahs and one sound truck.”
“If you attack,” the high-ranking diplomat told me in Vienna, “Ahmadinejad will be the new Saddam Hussein of the Arab world, but with more credibility and more power. You must bite the bullet and sit down with the Iranians.”
The diplomat went on, “There are people in Washington who would be unhappy if we found a solution. They are still banking on isolation and regime change. This is wishful thinking.” He added, “The window of opportunity is now.”
Sy_hersh
Article 3:
Belligerent Until the Bitter End
If You Can't Win One War, Start Another
The Bush regime currently has wars underway in Afghanistan and in Iraq and can bring neither to a conclusion.
Undeterred by these failures, the Bush regime gives every indication that it intends to start a war with Iran, a country that is capable of responding to US aggression over a broader front than the Sunni resistance has mounted in Iraq.
The US lacks sufficient conventional capability to prevail in such widespread conflict.
The US also lacks the financial resources.
Iraq alone has already cost several hundred billion borrowed dollars, with experts' estimates putting the ultimate cost in excess of one trillion dollars.
Moreover, the Bush regime's belligerent foreign policy extends to regions beyond the Middle East. The Bush regime has recently declared election outcomes in former Soviet republics as "unacceptable."
The "unacceptable" outcomes are those that do not empower parties aligned with the US and NATO.
Russians view the Bush regime's "democracy programs" for Ukraine, Georgia and Belarus as an effort to push Russia northward and deprive it of warm water ports.
Russian leaders speak of the "messianism of American foreign policy" leading to a new cold war....
Paul_Craig_Roberts
Chilling stuff, no ? We're openly discussing, for the first time in 60 years, dropping nuclear bombs on a far away country to save a presidents legacy ... but hey, you know what ? It's o.k : they're only tactical-bunker busting - mini nukes .... the fallout will be contained underground (doesn't oil live underground too ?? hmmmm) ... in densely populated areas - cities to you and me - places where real life people live their real lives.
The deaths of ordinary men, women and children is not 'collateral damage', these things are not just accidents, shit doesn't 'just happen' ... there's another word for 'it' once 'it' tops the 50 thousand mark : mass murder and genocide.
TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- Five U.N weapons inspectors arrived in Iran to visit uranium enrichment and reprocessing plants, Iranian media reported Saturday -- a visit Iran hoped would prove its nuclear intentions are peaceful.
The visit by the inspectors for the International Atomic Energy Agency was the first since Iran announced in mid-February that it was suspending surprise inspections and removing agency cameras from some nuclear facilities.
Iran's deputy nuclear chief, Mohammed Saeedi, said the inspectors would begin their work at the Isfahan Uranium Conversion Facility in central Iran on Sunday, followed by a visit to the Natanz uranium enrichment plant....
NYT
I have to say at this point that one of my collegues is Iranian : he came to France at the start of the Iraq/Iran war in 1980 and he still has family and friends over there.
For evident reasons we both are alarmed about the way this whole situation is being portrayed by the 'traditional' press ... i'm particulary galled when i read headlines in 'quality' news papers, like The Guardian and The Indy, who never fail to say 'The Iranian Nuke project'.
Let's be clear : every country has the inalienable right to explore nuclear energy technology - every country, not just a chosen few, not just white skinned populated countries... there is a framework to do this, there are checks and balances such as this One (I'm not here to give N.P.T lessons - go to the link, Wikipedia is really very good).
Yes countries can and do 'opt-out' (you know who you are, you there, at the back of the class), yes there is/has been a black market for aquiring materials and yes the current geo-pol situation is looking particularly dire.
Things are dire because we don't have adults in charge any more (have we ever ?) and when kiddies rule the roost, every one acquieses to the bully ... at least they do at first, but after a while, as we know, the worm will turn ... he usually turns to someone with a big stick to help defend him.
So, with this analogy in mind is it really so surprising, what with Iran's neighbourhood being what it is, that they might consider 'tooling up' ... Can we blame them ? ... I'm sure if you live in the Bronx you've got at least a car jack in the glove compartement.
Self defense is a given for anybody - especially when confronted by a bully with a penchant for pre-emption (yeah, you know who you are too, you).
The logic would seem to have it as follows:
Bully "oi, you, don'cha even be thinking about getting near any trees ... 'cos i'll do ya"
Wimp " bbbut ?? ... what are you on about ?"
Bully " I saw ya ... just watch it ... or i might do you anyway, just for fun ... mwouahahahaha"
Wimp" *gulp*"
(Bully speaks like Michael Cane in 'Get Carter' , Wimp speaks like Woody Allen in ... euhh ... any of his films)
The scene switches to the Wimps' bedroom where we see him logging onto e-bay for a nice shiny, brand new bestest-ever willow cricket bat signed by Tendulkar... as sold to him by the Bully ... only the signature's a fake and the handle's a bit dodgy.
The Bully can now justifiably act in pre-emptive self defense.
Thats kinda neat, i think.
Although ... it's not soooo neat in the real world ...
Article 1:
The Rise of U.S. Nuclear Primacy
Summary:
For four decades, relations among the major nuclear powers have been shaped by their common vulnerability, a condition known as mutual assured destruction.
But with the U.S. arsenal growing rapidly while Russia's decays and China's stays small, the era of MAD is ending and the era of U.S. nuclear primacy has begun.
PRESENT AT THE DESTRUCTION
For almost half a century, the world's most powerful nuclear states have been locked in a military stalemate known as mutual assured destruction (MAD).
By the early 1960s, the nuclear arsenals of the United States and the Soviet Union had grown so large and sophisticated that neither country could entirely destroy the other's retaliatory force by launching first, even with a surprise attack.
Starting a nuclear war was therefore tantamount to committing suicide.
During the Cold War, many scholars and policy analysts believed that MAD made the world relatively stable and peaceful because it induced great caution in international politics, discouraged the use of nuclear threats to resolve disputes, and generally restrained the superpowers' behavior.
(Revealingly, the last intense nuclear standoff, the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, occurred at the dawn of the era of MAD.)
Because of the nuclear stalemate, the optimists argued, the era of intentional great power wars had ended.
Critics of MAD, however, argued that it prevented not great-power war but the rolling back of the power and influence of a dangerously expansionist and totalitarian Soviet Union.
From that perspective, MAD prolonged the life of an evil empire.
This debate may now seem like ancient history, but it is actually more relevant than ever because the age of MAD is nearing an end.
Today, for the first time in almost 50 years, the United States stands on the verge of attaining nuclear primacy.
It will probably soon be possible for the United States to destroy the long-range nuclear arsenals of Russia or China with a first strike.
This dramatic shift in the nuclear balance of power stems from a series of improvements in the United States' nuclear systems, the precipitous decline of Russia's arsenal, and the glacial pace of modernization of China's nuclear forces.
Unless Washington's policies change or Moscow and Beijing take steps to increase the size and readiness of their forces, Russia and China - and the rest of the world - will live in the shadow of U.S. nuclear primacy for many years to come.
One's views on the implications of this change will depend on one's theoretical perspective. Hawks, who believe that the United States is a benevolent force in the world, will welcome the new nuclear era because they trust that U.S. dominance in both conventional and nuclear weapons will help deter aggression by other countries.
For example, as U.S. nuclear primacy grows, China's leaders may act more cautiously on issues such as Taiwan, realizing that their vulnerable nuclear forces will not deter U.S. intervention - and that Chinese nuclear threats could invite a U.S. strike on Beijing's arsenal.
But doves, who oppose using nuclear threats to coerce other states and fear an emboldened and unconstrained United States, will worry.
Nuclear primacy might lure Washington into more aggressive behavior, they argue, especially when combined with U.S. dominance in so many other dimensions of national power.
Finally, a third group - owls, who worry about the possibility of inadvertent conflict - will fret that U.S. nuclear primacy could prompt other nuclear powers to adopt strategic postures, such as by giving control of nuclear weapons to lower-level commanders, that would make an unauthorized nuclear strike more likely - thereby creating what strategic theorists call "crisis instability."
(snip - it's 4 pages long)
foreignaffairs.org
So, there we have it; an influential think tank (along the lines of this one ) openly advocating, or rather, pleading for the use of the biggest stick of them all.
Stuff like this - and it's not even your typical kinda conspiracy/mumbo-jumbo stuff - that really frightens the beejebus outta me.
And it's not finished ... one of the first people to highlight the Abu Grhaïb story was Seymore Hersh.
This week he does it again :
Article 2 :
THE IRAN PLANS
Would President Bush go to war to stop Tehran from getting the bomb?
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.
(snip)
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 former defense official, who still deals with sensitive issues for the Bush Administration, told me that the military planning was premised on a belief that “a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government.”
He added, “I was shocked when I heard it, and asked myself, ‘What are they smoking?’ ”
(snip)
One military planner told me that White House criticisms of Iran and the high tempo of planning and clandestine activities amount to a campaign of “coercion” aimed at Iran.
“You have to be ready to go, and we’ll see how they respond,” the officer said. “You have to really show a threat in order to get Ahmadinejad to back down.” He added, “People think Bush has been focussed on Saddam Hussein since 9/11,” but, “in my view, if you had to name one nation that was his focus all the way along, it was Iran.”
(In response to detailed requests for comment, the White House said that it would not comment on military planning but added, “As the President has indicated, we are pursuing a diplomatic solution”; the Defense Department also said that Iran was being dealt with through “diplomatic channels” but wouldn’t elaborate on that; the C.I.A. said that there were “inaccuracies” in this account but would not specify them.)
“This is much more than a nuclear issue,” one high-ranking diplomat told me in Vienna.
“That’s just a rallying point, and there is still time to fix it. But the Administration believes it cannot be fixed unless they control the hearts and minds of Iran. The real issue is who is going to control the Middle East and its oil in the next ten years.”
(snip)
Some operations, apparently aimed in part at intimidating Iran, are already under way. American Naval tactical aircraft, operating from carriers in the Arabian Sea, have been flying simulated nuclear-weapons delivery missions—rapid ascending maneuvers known as “over the shoulder” bombing—since last summer, the former official said, within range of Iranian coastal radars.
(snip)
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.
One target is Iran’s main centrifuge plant, at Natanz, nearly two hundred miles south of Tehran.
Natanz, which is no longer under I.A.E.A. safeguards, reportedly has underground floor space to hold fifty thousand centrifuges, and laboratories and workspaces buried approximately seventy-five feet beneath the surface...
(snip)
The lack of reliable intelligence leaves military planners, given the goal of totally destroying the sites, little choice but to consider the use of tactical nuclear weapons. “Every other option, in the view of the nuclear weaponeers, would leave a gap,” the former senior intelligence official said. “ ‘Decisive’ is the key word of the Air Force’s planning. It’s a tough decision. But we made it in Japan.”
He went on, “Nuclear planners go through extensive training and learn the technical details of damage and fallout—we’re talking about mushroom clouds, radiation, mass casualties, and contamination over years.
This is not an underground nuclear test, where all you see is the earth raised a little bit. These politicians don’t have a clue, and whenever anybody tries to get it out”—remove the nuclear option—“they’re shouted down.”
(snip)
The attention given to the nuclear option has created serious misgivings inside the offices of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, he added, and some officers have talked about resigning.
Late this winter, the Joint Chiefs of Staff sought to remove the nuclear option from the evolving war plans for Iran—without success, the former intelligence official said. “The White House said, ‘Why are you challenging this? The option came from you.’
The Pentagon adviser on the war on terror confirmed that some in the Administration were looking seriously at this option, which he linked to a resurgence of interest in tactical nuclear weapons among Pentagon civilians and in policy circles.
He called it “a juggernaut that has to be stopped.” He also confirmed that some senior officers and officials were considering resigning over the issue.
“There are very strong sentiments within the military against brandishing nuclear weapons against other countries,” the adviser told me. “This goes to high levels.”
The matter may soon reach a decisive point, he said, because the Joint Chiefs had agreed to give President Bush a formal recommendation stating that they are strongly opposed to considering the nuclear option for Iran. “The internal debate on this has hardened in recent weeks,” the adviser said. “And, if senior Pentagon officers express their opposition to the use of offensive nuclear weapons, then it will never happen.”
(snip)
Michel Samaha, a veteran Lebanese Christian politician and former cabinet minister in Beirut, told me that the Iranian retaliation might be focussed on exposed oil and gas fields in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates. “They would be at risk,” he said, “and this could begin the real jihad of Iran versus the West. You will have a messy world.”
Iran could also initiate a wave of terror attacks in Iraq and elsewhere, with the help of Hezbollah.
On April 2nd, the Washington Post reported that the planning to counter such attacks “is consuming a lot of time” at U.S. intelligence agencies.
“The best terror network in the world has remained neutral in the terror war for the past several years,” the Pentagon adviser on the war on terror said of Hezbollah.
“This will mobilize them and put us up against the group that drove Israel out of southern Lebanon. If we move against Iran, Hezbollah will not sit on the sidelines.
Unless the Israelis take them out, they will mobilize against us.” (When I asked the government consultant about that possibility, he said that, if Hezbollah fired rockets into northern Israel, “Israel and the new Lebanese government will finish them off.”)
The adviser went on, “If we go, the southern half of Iraq will light up like a candle.”
The American, British, and other coalition forces in Iraq would be at greater risk of attack from Iranian troops or from Shiite militias operating on instructions from Iran.
(Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, has close ties to the leading Shiite parties in Iraq.)
A retired four-star general told me that, despite the eight thousand British troops in the region, “the Iranians could take Basra with ten mullahs and one sound truck.”
“If you attack,” the high-ranking diplomat told me in Vienna, “Ahmadinejad will be the new Saddam Hussein of the Arab world, but with more credibility and more power. You must bite the bullet and sit down with the Iranians.”
The diplomat went on, “There are people in Washington who would be unhappy if we found a solution. They are still banking on isolation and regime change. This is wishful thinking.” He added, “The window of opportunity is now.”
Sy_hersh
Article 3:
Belligerent Until the Bitter End
If You Can't Win One War, Start Another
The Bush regime currently has wars underway in Afghanistan and in Iraq and can bring neither to a conclusion.
Undeterred by these failures, the Bush regime gives every indication that it intends to start a war with Iran, a country that is capable of responding to US aggression over a broader front than the Sunni resistance has mounted in Iraq.
The US lacks sufficient conventional capability to prevail in such widespread conflict.
The US also lacks the financial resources.
Iraq alone has already cost several hundred billion borrowed dollars, with experts' estimates putting the ultimate cost in excess of one trillion dollars.
Moreover, the Bush regime's belligerent foreign policy extends to regions beyond the Middle East. The Bush regime has recently declared election outcomes in former Soviet republics as "unacceptable."
The "unacceptable" outcomes are those that do not empower parties aligned with the US and NATO.
Russians view the Bush regime's "democracy programs" for Ukraine, Georgia and Belarus as an effort to push Russia northward and deprive it of warm water ports.
Russian leaders speak of the "messianism of American foreign policy" leading to a new cold war....
Paul_Craig_Roberts
Chilling stuff, no ? We're openly discussing, for the first time in 60 years, dropping nuclear bombs on a far away country to save a presidents legacy ... but hey, you know what ? It's o.k : they're only tactical-bunker busting - mini nukes .... the fallout will be contained underground (doesn't oil live underground too ?? hmmmm) ... in densely populated areas - cities to you and me - places where real life people live their real lives.
The deaths of ordinary men, women and children is not 'collateral damage', these things are not just accidents, shit doesn't 'just happen' ... there's another word for 'it' once 'it' tops the 50 thousand mark : mass murder and genocide.
posted by Damiel | 12:27 PM
0 Comments:
Enregistrer un commentaire
<< Home