Even though that knowledgable experts of the region assert that Iran and Syria do not control Hizbollah despite their influence with the group, the Bush administration, and particularly the President, have made it a point to accuse both countries of being the prime movers behind Hizbollah’s attacks on Israel. US spokespersons, such as UN ambassador Bolton, have made numerous threatening noises about Iran in recent months:
The U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, John Bolton, Wednesday [March 15, 2006] compared the threat from Iran’s nuclear programs to the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks on the United States.
“Just like Sept. 11, only with nuclear weapons this time, that’s the threat. I think that is the threat,” Bolton told ABC News’ Nightline. “I think it’s just facing reality. It’s not a happy reality, but it’s reality and if you don’t deal with it, it will become even more unpleasant.”
This is not merely rhetorical excess, in my view. Bush and other administration mouthpieces are setting the stage, again, for an attack on Iran, an attack that is ever more likely to involve nuclear weapons.
(cont.)
The Current Situation: Failure on All Fronts.
Things look bad at the moment for President Bush’s glorious “opportunity” in the Middle East. Israel, far from eradicating Hizbollah, is floundering. Indeed, the only thing it appears to have eradicated is Lebanon’s fragile democracy, the “Cedar Revolution” after having destroyed billions of dollars of essential infrastructure and made over 750,000 people homeless, people who before now had little reason to support Hizbollah, but which are now more than likely to see the group as their heroes fighting the good fight against the demonic Israelis.
In terms of our own position, the US is becoming increasingly estranged from the International community, who see our government’s actions in Iraq and our support of Israel’s Lebanon excursion as signs that we have become a rogue state. Lebanon’s government, battered as it is, has already made clear that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will not be welcome in their country in her efforts to broach a “settlement” between Israel and the Lebanese government, effectively terminating her attempt at shuttle diplomacy before it even began.
Meanwhile, in Iraq, that forgotten central front in the never-ending War on Terror, the pentagon has apparently abandoned its plans to draw down American forces, and is instead sending in more troops, and extending the deployments of troops already stationed there, to try to quell and increasingly deadly and chaotic civil war.
At home, Bush’s foreign policy failures are increasingly seen as an albatross hanging around the neck of his Republican supporters as the mid-term elections edge ever closer. More and more Republicans, candidates and other leaders both, are acknowledging the obvious: Bush’s unpopular wars abroad no longer have the support of a majority of Americans. Republicans are increasingly seen as a party which has weakened our national security, rather than strengthened it with their uncritical support for Bush’s costly overseas adventure in Iraq.
Sadly, this litany of foreign policy failures before the mid-term elections may only embolden the Bush administration to pursue an even more risky, and far more dangerous solution to its problems overseas and also politically at home: War with Iran.
Bush’s Urge to Throw a Hail Mary Pass in Iran.
We know, from the detailed reports of Seymour Hersh and others, that Bush tasked the Pentagon with preparing plans to attack Iran, plans that have included the use of nuclear weapons. Indeed, the so-called “Revolt of the Generals” earlier this year was likely sparked, in large part, by deep concerns among our military leaders regarding those plans.
Smart military minds know that invading and occupying Iran is simply not an option (it has three times the size and population of Iraq, where a substantial portion of the U.S. military’s combat units remain embroiled), and also that simply bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities — those that are known, at least — is unlikely to deter Iran from seeking nuclear weapons. Indeed, it is more likely to spur them to accelerate their efforts. […]
Despite the insistence of the same talk-TV zealots in the pre-Iraq days that a bit of shock and awe would presage the collapse of the mullahs, the military also knows that attacking Iran would almost certainly shore up the power of the regime, and tilt most debates in favor of its most hardline element. And the likely response from Iran, both in terms of direct strikes on U.S. personnel stationed in Iraq, as well as proxy terror strikes throughout the region — and also the likelihood that such an attack would crank up the hostility of Iraq’s Shiite majority to the U.S. presence — would imperil U.S. strategic interests across a wide front. And that, in turn, would force the U.S. to escalate its own response, opening a new war of attrition even if the original intention was simply to destroy particular Iranian assets. […]
So why go after Rummy if the goal is to stop another bout of reckless adventurism for which the men and women in uniform pay the price? Well, it’s a key battle in pursuit of that goal, because by publicly challenging Rummy’s handling of Iraq, the generals send a none-too-subtle signal to the U.S. public, in an election year, that the Bush administration is strategically incompetent. And that would make it harder for Messrs. Cheney and Rumsfeld and co. to open a second front in Iran.
Yet, despite the uproar the General’s revolt created, Bush has never publicly disavowed the use of military force against Iran, or the use of nuclear weapons. Indeed, quite the contrary, as this recent public statement by our President reveals in response to the very specific question about whether the use of nuclear weapons was an option regarding Iran:
Q: Sir, when you talk about Iran, and you talk about how you have diplomatic efforts, you also say all options are on the table. Does that include the possibility of a nuclear strike? Is that something that your administration will plan for?
THE PRESIDENT: All options are on the table. …
As things head further south in Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon, the administration continues to state publicly that Iran is the major problem in the region. Iran supports Hizbollah in Lebanon, they say, and it is alleged to be providing arms to the Shi’a militias in Iraq. Its nascent nuclear program, which has, to date, enriched a miniscule amount of uranium to levels not high enough for use in making nuclear weapons, is claimed to be a direct threat to both Israel and the American homeland by John Bolton, and their supporters in the right wing media, such as Charles Krauthammer:
As it races to acquire nuclear weapons, Iran makes clear that if there is any trouble, the Jews will be the first to suffer. “We have announced that wherever [in Iran] America does make any mischief, the first place we target will be Israel,” said Gen. Mohammad Ebrahim Dehghani, a top Revolutionary Guards commander. Hitler was only slightly more direct when he announced seven months before invading Poland that, if there was another war, “the result will be . . . the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe.”
Last week Bernard Lewis, America’s dean of Islamic studies, who just turned 90 and remembers the 20th century well, confessed that for the first time he feels it is 1938 again. He did not need to add that in 1938, in the face of the gathering storm — a fanatical, aggressive, openly declared enemy of the West, and most determinedly of the Jews — the world did nothing.
When Iran’s mullahs acquire their coveted nukes in the next few years, the number of Jews in Israel will just be reaching 6 million. Never again?
The ever increasing comparisons of Iran’s leaders to Hitler, and of the Iranian nuclear program to the Holocaust serve only one purpose: to prepare the ground for a pre-emptive American attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities, sooner, rather than later. As Seymour Hersh’s most recent article regarding Bush’s Iran plans makes clear the generals in the Pentagon have seen the writing on the wall, and are making their stand against Rumsfeld’s, Cheney’s and the President’s mutual ambition for another war:
… Marine General Peter Pace, has gone further in his advice to the White House by addressing the consequences of an attack on Iran. “Here’s the military telling the President what he can’t do politically”—raising concerns about rising oil prices, for example—the former senior intelligence official said. “The J.C.S. chairman going to the President with an economic argument—what’s going on here?” (General Pace and the White House declined to comment. The Defense Department responded to a detailed request for comment by saying that the Administration was “working diligently” on a diplomatic solution and that it could not comment on classified matters.)
A retired four-star general, who ran a major command, said, “The system is starting to sense the end of the road, and they don’t want to be condemned by history. They want to be able to say, ‘We stood up.’ ”
These are desperate times for the Bush administration. Should Congress, as a whole or even one house, fall into the hands of the Democrats, they will incur great risks, not only politically, but also personally, from the myriad of Congressional investigations that are likely to follow. It would also likely mean the end to the neoconservative dream of a new, restructured Middle East, imposed by American military might, and organized along lines favorable to American interests (or at least to the interests of America’s multinational oil companies). For these reasons they will not go down without playing their final trump card: war with Iran.
Why Nukes?
But why should that war involve nuclear weapons? Because of simple economics and also the desire to once again intimidate potential adversaries. Much as Truman used Hiroshima and Nagasaki to send a message to Stalin, Bush will be tempted to employ nuclear weapons in Iran to send a message to other Islamic countries, and to Russia and China, that we not only have the means to use b=nukes, but that we also have the will to let the nuclear genie out of the bottle.
The ability to make nuclear weapons a viable option for US military planners again has long been a dream of Donald Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld is all about a reconfigured military, one that relies on speed and the overpowering force of its arsenal to achieve lightning victories without the investment of large numbers of troops. We saw how this vision of his played out in Iraq, where, indeed, Saddam Hussein’s conventional forces were swiftly disposed of with only minimal loss of life to American forces. Unfortunately, that smaller force has been unable to provide security post-invasion in Iraq, which has had devastating consequences for both the poor people of that country and for our own military, overstretched and worn down by years of occupation.
As part of this vision, Rumsfeld required the ability to strike quickly and with overwhelming force anywhere on the globe. Part of that ability includes our potential use of tactical nuclear weapons, both as a deterrent, and as a means to destroy targets that conventional weapons supposedly cannot. It is in effect, a new strategic doctrine which makes the use of nukes by our forces more likely:
The NPR [Nuclear Posture Review] presented a new U.S. strategic military doctrine intended to transform the defense establishment with the creation of a new triad, consisting of offensive strike systems (both nuclear and conventional), defenses (both active and passive), and a revitalized defense infrastructure that will provide new capabilities to meet emerging threats.
According to the NPR, the new triad will have four primary missions: to assure, dissuade, deter, and defeat. Bush later added a fifth mission, to preempt, which he characterized as proactive counterproliferation–the use of military force to prevent or reverse proliferation.
The “Bush doctrine” called for new nuclear weapons to meet the requirements of these missions. It was argued that smaller nuclear weapons could reduce collateral civilian damage and make U.S. use of nuclear weapons more “credible,” therefore deterring hostile nations or even dissuading opponents from acquiring WMD. […]
If there is a new aspect to the Bush doctrine, it is that strategic policy now concentrates primarily on regional powers and emphasizes the possibility of preemptive action to disarm “rogue” states that possess WMD. In the administration’s view, this shift in focus and in geopolitical circumstances opens the possibility for–indeed the necessity of–a more dynamic nuclear policy. According to the NPR, “Nuclear attack options that vary in scale, scope, and purpose will complement other military capabilities. The combination can provide the range of options needed to pose a credible deterrent to adversaries whose values and calculations of risk and of gain and loss may be very different from and more difficult to discern than those of past adversaries.”
In other words, Bush has made the use of nuclear weapons by the United states a necessary element of our counter-proliferation strategy; i.e., our strategy to deter other countries from acquiring weapons of mass destruction. Indeed, one might argue that the entire focus of this change in our strategic posture has been directed at one country, and one country alone: Iran.
We have allowed North Korea to build nuclear facilities and obtain nuclear weapons without even the hint that a pre-emptive strike against those facilities was a possibility in our approach to the problem that regime poses. Yet, a country with a much smaller nuclear program, one that is not capable of producing nuclear weapons in the near term, has been constantly threatened with “all options” at our disposal, including a pre-emptive attack involving tactical, “bunker-busting” nukes. Take a look at this google search for Iran+preemptive attack+bunker busting to see the rash of published articles and internet blog posts involving this very scenario. Bush’s intentions to use nukes against Iran is hardly a secret at this point.
