Telegraph: Strategists at the Pentagon are drawing up plans for devastating bombing raids backed by submarine-launched ballistic missile attacks against Iran's nuclear sites as a "last resort" to block Teheran's efforts to develop an atomic bomb...(more)
Although the drums of war are getting louder, this is hardly anything new. Sy Hersch began telling us about this a month ago, as did Phillip Giraldi more than 6 months ago. As Giraldi points out, Iran's nuclear facilities are not reachable with conventional bunker busters, and a US attack on them would likely involve the use of strategic nuclear weapons. Listen to Giraldi talk about it here.
As I've written extensively about before, the real reason we will attack Iran has little to do with their plan to develop nuclear weapons, whether they even are or not, and everything to do with Bush's record deficits, our spiralling foreign debt, and Iran's plans to switch its oil exchange from a US dollar-based one to a Euro-based one in March. This is the very same thing Saddam did, but hardly no one wanted to listen to William Clark's warnings as to the real reason why the US was going to invade Iraq back then. Now that history has proven him right, we would be wise to listen to him now.
Today, the Boston Globe has a great piece explaining why an attack against Iran will be a huge mistake.Iran is prepared to retaliate, experts warn
Boston Globe: Iran is prepared to launch attacks using long-range missiles, secret commando units, and terrorist allies planted around the globe in retaliation for any strike on the country's nuclear facilities, according to new US intelligence assessments and military specialists.The media doesn't like to report it, but Iran has the "inalienable right" to "develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination" as guaranteed to them by Article IV of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. In fact, as I've written about many times previously, the Bush administration has failed to honor or ratify nuclear treaties regarding the proliferation and testing of nuclear weaponry ever since coming into office. So, despite all of the crazy rhetoric coming from Iran, they are actually more in the right in the world's eyes than the US with regards to the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons.
US and Israeli officials have not ruled out military action against Iran if diplomacy fails to thwart its nuclear ambitions. Among the options are airstrikes on suspected nuclear installations or covert action to sabotage the Iranian program.
But military and intelligence analysts warn that Iran -- which a recent US intelligence report described as ''more confident and assertive" than it has been since the early days of the 1979 Islamic revolution -- could unleash reprisals across the region, and perhaps even inside the United States, if the hard-line regime came under attack.
''When the Americans or Israelis are thinking about [military force], I hope they will sit down and think about everything the ayatollahs could do to make our lives miserable and what we will do to discourage them," said John Pike, director of the think tank GlobalSecurity.org, referring to Iran's religious leaders.
''There could be a cycle of escalation."
President Bush has said military force should be the last resort in international efforts to deter Iran from acquiring a nuclear bomb. Yet Bush has stated unequivocally that the United States would not tolerate an Iranian nuclear arsenal, which the CIA estimates could be in place in three to 10 years. Iran maintains its nuclear program is solely aimed at producing electricity, not weapons...(more)
That's why India, Germany, France, Russia and China have all cautioned against a pre-emptive attack on Iran and have called for a diplomatic solution instead. (hat tip to pessimist at Leftcoaster for an awesome post on this topic)
For anyone who thinks the US can just shock and awe our way to Tehran like we did Iraq, think again.
A major worry: newly acquired long-range missiles. Obtained with the assistance of North Korea, the Shahab 3 could strike Israel and perhaps even hit the periphery of Europe, according to a recent report by the Pentagon's National Air and Space Intelligence Center.
The missiles could also be tipped with chemical warheads and threaten US military bases in the region.
Iran is believed to have at least 20 launchers that are frequently moved around the country to avoid detection.
''Iran has an extensive missile-development program and has received support from entities in Russia, China, and North Korea," the Pentagon report said, estimating their range to be at least 800 miles.
New missile designs under development could travel 400 miles farther, it said, while Iran purchased at least a dozen X-55 cruise missiles from Ukraine in 2001 that are capable of carrying a nuclear warhead as far as Italy....(more)
If Bushco unilaterally attacks Iran, it will be time for the largest peace march the world has ever seen. It won't be hard to get 10 million people or more to take to the streets if the US starts dropping nukes, especially since gas prices will likely top $10 a gallon. I just wish it wouldn't have to come to that and we could put together one now, before they just go ahead and do it.
Cindy Sheehan where are you?