White House Planning to Bomb Iran
By: denbo
Published On: 10/18/2007 9:59:02 AM
In The New Yorker on 10/8, Seymour Hersh reports that under White House orders "the Joint Chiefs of Staff [have] . . . redraw[n] long-standing plans for a possible attack on Iran." The latest plan emphasizes "surgical" strikes against Iran. Because "surgical" doesn't sound terribly harmful, the plan constitutes a bait-and-switch, aimed at gaining Americans' assent and leading to additional attacks if Iran strikes back. Indeed, Philip Sherwell and Tim Shipman report in the Sunday Telegraph (9/17) that Dick Cheney advocates using tactical nuclear weapons against Iran's nuclear research facilities. Alarmingly, on 9/14 several nuclear-armed cruise missiles were transported to Barksdale AFB in Louisiana, from which most aerial weaponry is delivered to the Persian Gulf (see Webster Tarpley, "Solid Curtain-Citadel Shield 07 Military Drills Raise Specter of Imminent False Flag Provocation, Attack on Iran," 13 Sept. 2007, http://www.total411....). Equally alarming, on 10/17, Bush himself threatened that "avoiding World War III" depends on preventing the Iranians from "knowledge necessary to make a nuclear weapon" (see Peter Barker, "Bush Urges More Action From Congress," Washington Post, 10/18).
Despite such war-mongering, Hersh notes, "the White House has come to terms, in private, with the general consensus . . . that Iran is at least five years away from . . . a bomb." Indeed, Iran's uranium enrichment program has reached only 3.67 percent purity-far below what's required for atomic weaponry or nuclear energy (see Charles Hawley and David Gordon Smith, "Interview with Investigative Journalist Seymour Hersh," Der Spiegel 28 Sept. 2007, http://www.alternet.... ). Although we may wonder why oil-rich Iran wants nuclear energy, we should remember that the U.S. was oil-rich in the 1950s and yet at that time it developed nuclear energy. But, whereas administration officials today can negotiate with and provide incentives to North Korea, which already has several nuclear bombs, they seek war against Iran, which is at least five years away from a bomb!
Administration threats involve also its exaggerated claims of Iranian "interference" in Iraq. But, as Hersh notes, "Iran has had a presence in Iraq for decades; the extent and the purpose of its current activities there are in dispute." Recently, Iraq's Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki informed our Council on Foreign Relations that his country's relations with the Iranians have "improved to the point they are not interfering in our internal affairs" (qtd. in Washington Post, 1 October 2007, http://www.washingto...).
Administration claims, particularly about Iranian arms being used in Iraq, involve much more hype than evidence. Given the enormous black market for weapons in Iraq, the origins of weapons there are highly uncertain. According to Ray McGovern (a recently retired 30-year CIA analyst), the latest National Intelligence Estimate has been returned by the administration several times to be revised and massaged to inflate claims against Iran (http://www.alternet....). As Hans Blix (chief weapons inspector in Iraq before our invasion) indicates, "the U.S. has . . . push[ed] up accusations against Iran as a basis for . . . attack" (qtd. in Hersh).
Unfortunately, as with "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq, attacking Iran will lead to prolonged and disastrously escalated conflict. According to Scott Ritter's recent study Target Iran, "aerial bombardment of Iran would result in . . . attack[s] by Iranian missiles on . . . Israel, followed by . . . Hezbollah rocketing of northern Israel. . . . Iran will . . . then engage the entire coalition . . . force on the ground [in Iraq]. . . . Lines of communication with American logistics bases in Kuwait and Jordan will be cut. . . . American forces will become . . . dependent on aerial re-supply, which will expose American . . . aircraft to . . . Iranian surface-to-air missiles. . . . [E]ventually America will be forced to quit Iraq . . . or suffer extremely heavy casualties." Former national-security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski notes that Iran would likely react "by intensifying the conflict . . . also in Afghanistan . . . and that could draw in Pakistan. We will be stuck in a regional war for twenty years" (qtd. in Hersh).
If we think today oil is expensive, the bombing of Iran will cause prices to explode, shocking the world economy into recession and probably worse. As Ritter observes, "Iran will . . . play the oil card, not only shutting off its exportation of oil and natural gas, but also threaten[ing] the oil production of Iraq, Kuwait . . . and Saudi Arabia. . . . Iran would [probably] succeed in shutting down the straight of Hormuz, choking off the global supply of oil."
Despite these likely consequences of attacking Iran, Senators Kyl and Lieberman have sought recently to amend the defense appropriations bill by authorizing military force against that nation (see http://thomas.loc.go...). Although the amendment was toned down, it still allows the U.S. to attack Iran. Since only 22 senators voted against the toned-down amendment, concerned Americans who want cooler heads to prevail need to contact their congressmen and senators, who can be reached through the following websites: www.house.gov; www.senate.gov. Especially useful contact information appears below:
Congressman Rick Boucher
2187 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
202-225-3861
202-225-0442(fax)
Senator Jim Webb
144 Russell Senate Office Building
Washington, DC 20510
Phone: (202) 224-4024
Fax: 202-228-6363
Senator John Warner
225 Russell Building
Washington, D.C. 20510
(202) 224-2023
(202) 224-6295 FAX .
Comments