Iran Air Strikes Growing in Probability

The Washington Post reports that despite fact U.S. intelligence sources believe that Iran needs another 10 years before having nuclear weapons, Israel believes critical breakthrough will happen within months, and is therefore pressuring the Americans
Yitzhak Benhorin

Britain's foreign secretary called the idea of a nuclear strike "completely nuts."

Dan Bartlett, counselor to Bush, cautioned against reading too much into administration planning.

"The president's priority is to find a diplomatic solution to a problem the entire world recognizes," Bartlett told The Associated Press on Sunday. "And those who are drawing broad, definitive conclusions based on normal defense and intelligence planning, are ill-informed and are not knowledgeable of the administration's thinking on Iran."

Experts say a military strike on Iran would be risky and complicated. U.S. forces already are preoccupied with Iraq and Afghanistan, and an attack against Iran could inflame U.S. problems in the Muslim world.

British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, in an interview with the British Broadcasting Corp., said Britain would not launch a pre-emptive strike on Iran and he was as "certain as he could be" that neither would the U.S. He said he has a high suspicion that Iran is developing a civil nuclear capability which in turn could be used for nuclear weapons, but there is "no smoking gun" to prove it and justify military action.

"I understand people's frustration with the diplomatic process," Straw said. "It takes a long time and is quite a subtle process. The reason why we're opposed to military action is because it's an infinitely worse option and there's no justification for it."

The U.N. Security Council has demanded Iran suspend its uranium enrichment program. But Iran has so far refused to halt its nuclear activity, saying the small-scale enrichment project was strictly for research and not for development of nuclear weapons.

Bush has said Iran may pose the greatest challenge to the United States of any other country in the world. And while he has stressed that diplomacy is always preferable, he has defended his administration's strike-first policy against terrorists and other enemies.

"The threat from Iran is, of course, their stated objective to destroy our strong ally Israel," the president said last month in Cleveland. "That's a threat, a serious threat. It's a threat to world peace; it's a threat, in essence, to a strong alliance. I made it clear, I'll make it clear again, that we will use military might to protect our ally."

Vice President Dick Cheney told the pro-Israel lobbying group AIPAC last month, "The United States is keeping all options on the table in addressing the irresponsible conduct of the regime. And we join other nations in sending that regime a clear message: We will not allow Iran to have a nuclear weapon."

It looks like if we do decide to strike Iran, we won't have Britian on our side this time.

The Wrap: A worm's eye view

Monday April 10, 2006


Andrew Brown has made a bet he wants to lose

I have a bet of ten pounds on with my wife - struck about a month ago - that the Americans will have bombed Iran before Boxing Day this year. It seems a silly bet to have on the first nuclear war since 1945, but right now I can't think of a better one. I certainly can't think of any way to stop the war happening.

Until now, my suspicions have been ill-formed, and based on two things: the fact that the Daily Telegraph, which is close to the Bush regime in matters of foreign policy, believes that this may happen, and the rather more obvious fact that almost everyone can see it would be a monumental disaster to bomb Iran, so it must be almost irresistible to the White House that brought us the new democratic Iraq.

But there is a long and thoughtful article by Seymour Hersh in the latest New Yorker that gives form and substance to these apprehensions. He is, of course, one of the greatest investigative reporters of our age, and his sources in the American government are matchless. He claims that very serious consideration is being given to a bombing campaign to destroy Iran's nuclear sites. What's more, the methods used for selling the project have an eerily familiar ring.

"In recent weeks, the president has quietly initiated a series of talks on plans for Iran with a few key senators and members of Congress, including at least one Democrat. A senior member of the House Appropriations Committee, who did not take part in the meetings but has discussed their content with his colleagues, told me that there had been 'no formal briefings,' because 'they're reluctant to brief the minority. They're doing the Senate, somewhat selectively.'

"The House member said that no one in the meetings 'is really objecting' to the talk of war. 'The people they're briefing are the same ones who led the charge on Iraq. At most, questions are raised: How are you going to hit all the sites at once? How are you going to get deep enough?' (Iran is building facilities underground.) 'There's no pressure from Congress' not to take military action, the House member added. 'The only political pressure is from the guys who want to do it'."

The answer to the question, "How do you get deep enough?" is that you have to use nuclear weapons. Even these may not be enough, but the Americans believe that one of the most important Iranian nuclear facilities is too deep to be damaged by conventional weapons, and anyone who would even consider using nuclear weapons is not going to suppose they won't be powerful enough.

For a whole range of moral, practical, and even patriotic reasons I think that bombing Iran is a terrible idea, which only criminal lunatics could entertain. These reflections give me no confidence that Hersh is wrong. Criminal lunacy is an accurate shorthand for a lot of the Bush government's actions. In any case, perhaps something like this threat is implicit in the logic of nuclear weapons.

When, after all, can it ever be justified to use a nuclear bomb? What are these hugely expensive, hugely destructive things good for? They are certainly effective as a deterrent against other nuclear-armed states, but it is in the nature of an effective deterrent that it is never used. Just before the start of the Iraqi war, the Israelis refitted their own equivalent of a Polaris submarine, but if it is ever used to retaliate against a nuclear attack on Israel it will have failed.

No, the only effective use of a nuclear weapon must be as a first strike, against an opponent who cannot strike back. They deliver the annihilating blow that conventional bombs can only promise - but only so long as they are unopposed. Once your opponent has the weapons, there is no guarantee that he will not use them back, and no gain that would justify the pain that this would inflict on you.

In this light, the lasting argument against bombing Iran is that one way or another, some year or another, someone will build a device and deliver it against America or Britain.

The Americans planning to attack Iran see their grip on the Persian Gulf and its oil slipping. They know they are losing a war in Iraq despite an overwhelming superiority in wealth and technology over their enemies - though it's pretty clear that they don't know why they are losing. They believe that their empire is destined, perhaps by God's favour, to run the world forever if they work to their strengths. If Iran does develop nuclear weapons, it will be impossible to bully, just as North Korea already is. And Iran, too, is a country run by criminal lunatics. What better opportunity could there be to use a bomb?

This may be the easiest ten pounds I have ever made, as well as the most expensive.

* Andrew Brown maintains a weblog, the Helmintholog.

Guardian Unlimited copyright Guardian Newspapers Limited 2006.

I am 100% sure we have many plans on how to attack Iran.

However, I see no reason at this time to attack as they pose no clear and present danger to the US.

And now we have this sort of nonsense, yet another example of the failure to understand and learn from history.

The march of folly continues....