Asked by a reporter on Tuesday if he would take the nuclear option off the table in what action he might take against Iran, President Bush said he would not. Within hours, the price of oil shot up to more than $72 a barrel, as a direct result of such threats.
Bush’s refusal to take nuclear attack “off the table” is received in different ways. But absolutely none of them has a positive outcome.
It is vital that we insist that the nuclear option be taken off the table, even as a tactic. My arguments follow in this brief diary. Please continue reading.
Some believe Bush’s insistence on keeping the nuclear option is a sign of weakness—a signal that he has few options in dealing with Iran, having squandered his credibility, political capital and military flexibility on Iraq. Weakness in the face of a possible threat (more reasonable and more direct from North Korea, but in terms of the region, potentially from Iran) is not good.
Others insist it’s a bluff, an attempt to intimidate, or at least to keep Iran off-balance, not knowing what Bush might do. As a New York Times editorial pointed, this kind of threat is best made privately, as apparently the Clinton administration did (though it’s not known if the threat was ever nuclear.) But the uncertainty–the anxiety– now extends to America’s allies, and come to that, to Americans. Bush probably worries Iranians less than he worries the British and certainly the citizens of his own country. He’s got us scared to death.
Because at least some of us realize the enormity of the so-called nuclear option. Dropping atomic bombs–which is what these “bunker-busters” are–on a sovereign state with an elected leadership, that has no nuclear weapons and has committed no act of war, merely on little more than the suspicion that Iran intends someday to have nuclear weapons–would easily qualify as one of the most monstrous acts of at least the past several centuries.
Such an attack, which is likely to kill thousands and probably millions directly, and sicken even more millions in 3 or 4 countries (including Americans in Afghanistan) with serious radiation-caused illnesses, with other injuries, illnesses and genetic transgressions over years and generations, would be the first time in 60 years nuclear weapons would be used in war. (I will back up these numbers in a future diary, but the information has been posted here before.)
The economic effects ($70 a barrel oil will look like Christmas), the likelihood of escalations and wider warfare, spreading death and pain and suffering across the world, make a list of possible horrors. But one thing is just about certain: the morning after such an attack, America will be a pariah, an outcast in the world. The name of America will be spoken with same inflection as Nazi Germany for generations. No American now alive, nor their children and grandchildren, will live down this disgrace.
That’s what we are justifiably afraid of. But even the act of keeping the nuclear option on the table makes nuclear warfare more likely. It has re-introduced nuclear weapons as thinkable. Which nation will threaten their use next? And which nation will feel compelled to use them, just to make their threat credible?
The use of nuclear weapons to attack Iran must be taken off the table. Or there will be no table.
There are a number of ongoing efforts to tell that Members of Congress and others that the nuclear option is unacceptable, and urge them to take action. One of these, a 14 day campaign called Off the Table, can be found here.