Monday, April 10, 2006


According to an online article by Seymour M. Hersch in the New Yorker, the Bush Administration is contemplating the idea of using bunker busting nuclear warheads on nuclear facilities in Iran, producing the usual chorus of denials and media attacks from the Administration in Washington.
We keep asking. "can it get any worse?" and much to our horror, it does. Yes, the President has indicated that he is seeking a diplomatic solution to the situation with Iran, but when you consider the fact that he said the same thing about Iraq, you just have to wonder how honest this president can be about anything.
Assuming that the president is again lying (it seems to have evolved from an enjoyable pass time into a full time obsession) I really have to wonder about the wisdom of such a strike.
Iran is not the Islamic equivalent of Grenada. There are many ways in which the Iranians could make life difficult not only for the United States but for the entire world.
1. This is an oil rich nation which could increase the price of oil by dramatically by cutting back on production. Think higher gas prices and increased inflation.
2. If Bush is foolish enough to take such a preemptive strike the Iranians could immediately launch military expeditions into Iraq and make our situation there even more difficult.
3. The Iranians could mine the Persian Gulf.
4. And then there's that matter of the underwater missile the Iranians just tested which they claim is invisible to radar.
5. An attack on the nuclear facilities would only make the Iranians more determined to obtain a nuclear weapon. For some odd reason Bush just doesn't seem to understand that nationalism is a sword that cuts both ways. Even reform-minded Iranians are proud of the fact that their nation is pursuing nuclear power and/or weapons. Moreover, an attack on Iranian nuclear facilities would only prove to the Iranians and to other Muslim nations that they need nuclear weapons to deter attacks by the one nation in the history of mankind to ever use nuclear weapons--the United States. In a similar vein, such a move would provide the Iranian government with an excuse to withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.
6. In the event of a preemptive strike, the united States would, not be able to persuade the United Nations to impose sanctions on Iran. Without sanctions like the types that were imposed Iraq after the first Gulf War, Iran would dedicate more effort, finances, and manpower towards the reconstruction of its nuclear technology. The U.S. is a world super power but it is currently bogged down in two wars, which might make proper surveillance of Iran a difficult task.
7. Bush would successfully unify both reformers and fundamentalists against the United States. As it is you have a large group of people who have grown tired of theocracy and who want more contact with the west and western culture. If Bush decides to go on a bombing spree he will do any number of things. He could give the radicals an excuse to further clamp down on would be reformers. On the other hand he might well turn the reformers against the United States and the West in general. Someone should really tell George W. Bush that countries are funny that way; hey don't like being attacked by other countries. Invasions and preemptive strikes would actually alienate the very people in Iran who we would like to help.
8. A preemptive strike would only encourage the Iranian government to strike back at the United States. Can you say "state sponsored terrorism?"
9. Iran also has 500 Shebab (types 1 and 2) ballistic missiles which can reach U.S. targets in Qatar, Oman, Kuwait, and Iraq.
10. Their Shebab 3 Missiles, (of which there may be between 25 and 100) can reach targets in Israel. Would anyone care to guess how Israel would react to an attack by Iran and how other Muslim nations would react to an Israeli retaliation? Can you say "general Gulf War?" (Although part of me suspects that Bush, in accordance with his dangerous, Domionionist World views and his fanatical belief in the End Times, would probably WELCOME a Gulf War in the hope that it would spread to a global nuclear holocaust. Hey--the Muslims have their 72 virgins and Bush probably wants to go up in a mushroom cloud so he can bow before the feet of Jesus and quip, "I did it all for you my Lord!" )
Yup. It looks as our deranged president has really thought this one through. As for the song and dance about how he wants to pursue a diplomatic solution...
Are we to assume that he has been as honest about the situation with Iran as he was with the situation with Iraq?

1 comment:

BEAST said...

The truth is this:

Iran is definitely a more formidable opponent and threat to the United States than Iraq ever was.

Iran's formidable missiles can reach US shores, and I do suspect that they already have nuclear capability already. For Bush to open a new war front in Iran is not only the surest route to disaster, it already strains the already bogged down US military in both existing war fronts.

The war booty for ousting the Ayatollah(Read: Oil) may not even compensate for the alarming losses that the US may have to sustain, both in terms of lives loss and money drain, because unlike Iraq, Iran did not have to suffer the delibilating effect of more than a decade of sanctions.

Attacking Iran at this point of time would be suicidal for the American forces. They may be biting more than they can chew, which really isn't a good thing.