Sunday, April 09, 2006

U.S. Is Studying Military Strike Options on Iran

Washington Post: The Bush administration is studying options for military strikes against Iran as part of a broader strategy of coercive diplomacy to pressure Tehran to abandon its alleged nuclear development program, according to U.S. officials and independent analysts.

No attack appears likely in the short term, and many specialists inside and outside the U.S. government harbor serious doubts about whether an armed response would be effective. But administration officials are preparing for it as a possible option and using the threat "to convince them this is more and more serious," as a senior official put it. (...)
The real kicker is buried on p.3. Bushco is planning on using small tactical bunker buster nukes to attack Iran. Is anyone contemplating what the world reaction to the US using nuclear weapons would be? It won't be positive. These guys need run out of office right now. They're frickin insane. [Video via C&L]
Pentagon planners are studying how to penetrate eight-foot-deep targets and are contemplating tactical nuclear devices. The Natanz facility consists of more than two dozen buildings, including two huge underground halls built with six-foot walls and supposedly protected by two concrete roofs with sand and rocks in between, according to Edward N. Luttwak, a specialist at the Center for Strategic and International Studies..

"The targeteers honestly keep coming back and saying it will require nuclear penetrator munitions to take out those tunnels," said Kenneth M. Pollack, a former CIA analyst. "Could we do it with conventional munitions? Possibly. But it's going to be very difficult to do."...(more)
How does anyone know that Iran is committed to making nuclear weapons? No evidence I know of has ever shown that Iran is doing anything beyond seeking a nuclear energy program. So, how has Iran violated it's "inalienable right" to develop nuclear energy?
TREATY ON THE NON-PROLIFERATION OF NUCLEAR WEAPONS
Article IV

1.Nothing in this Treaty shall be interpreted as affecting the inalienable right of all the Parties to the Treaty to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination and in conformity with articles I and II of this Treaty.2. All the Parties to the Treaty undertake to facilitate, and have the right to participate in, the fullest possible exchange of equipment, materials and scientific and technological information for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy...
Iran has not violated the NPT yet, but Bushco has, and the ABM treaty too, And thanks to his getting rid of so many qualified weapons experts at the State dept and replacing them with cronies we can't trust a word this admin says about Iran's nuclear ambitions (not to mention all of the lies and cherrypicking of the intel from this admin in the past)...

State Department sees exodus of weapons experts
Knight Ridder: Key arms-control issues since President Bush took office:
The Bush administration's arms control policies began with a refusal to submit a global treaty to ban underground nuclear-test blasts indefinitely for Senate ratification.

The administration withdrew the United States from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty and blocked international efforts to conclude a pact on verifying compliance with a global biological-weapons ban.

The administration also rejected a mechanism for verifying that the United States and Russia are adhering to a 2002 accord to cut deployed nuclear warheads, has embraced new uses for nuclear arms and is spending billions modernizing and improving the U.S. arsenal....

So, by threatening to attack a country for pursuing its "inailiable right" according to the same NPT treaty the US is itself purposefully violating, Bush has made the US out to be a collossal hypocrite. Maybe that 36% of the sycophants, the faux news believers and the brain dead is falling for Bush's rhetoric against Iran, but the rest of the world aint buying it.

I'm ashamed of our current foreign policy. It is never 'just' to engage in a preventive war, and even though bushco have tried to redefine what they are doing as a preemptive war doctrine, it is not. There have been thousands of texts defining what is a 'just war' and on that foundation rests international law.

Anyone who refers to Iraq as a preemptive war is either ignorant or engaging in doublespeak. A preemptive attack is just, and preventive war is a war crime. Iraq was a preventive war.

DoD Dictionary of Military Terms

preemptive attack - (DOD) An attack initiated on the basis of incontrovertible evidence that an enemy attack is imminent

preventive war - (DOD) A war initiated in the belief that military conflict, while not imminent, is inevitable, and that to delay would involve greater risk.
WWI and WWII began because Germany started preventive wars.
Preventive war Examples

World War I

Leaders of Imperial Germany were concerned that Russia was becoming more powerful and believed that war was inevitable, so sought to provoke a war with Russia as soon as possible. (...)

World War II

Germany's attacks on some neutral countries in the spring of 1940 are often given as examples of preventive wars aiming at preventing Germany's chief enemy Britain from occupying their territories, which would have harmed Germany (...)

The Bush doctrine, Iraq and Afghanistan

Preventive war has been described as an important element of the Bush Doctrine, although the U.S. government [read bushco doublespeak] uses the term preemptive in a way which is partly consistent with international usage...

If just building the weaponry that could be used to attack another country is grounds to be attacked, then every country in the world would be justified to launch an attack against the US right now.

The fact is, nukes are here to stay, and they will spread eventually, and no amount of threat of using force or sanction from one nation no matter how great will prevent that. It must be an international effort, and all nations must be kept at the table with a continuing dialogue. In fact, as N Korea and Iran show clearly, isolating a country and threatening it leaves that country no option but to pursue nukes.

The only hope of keeping nukes from proliferating or worse being used is to form stronger international treaties, coalitions, and agencies instead of blatently breaking all of them like chimpyco has been doing. We desperately need to strengthen the UN, not tear it apart. All peace and progress in this world comes from negotiation, never by subordination. Any peace brought by beligerance is always illusory and fleeting.

We need to turn the war on terror and nuclear arms control over to the UN and do away with the single vote veto on the UN security council. The US should also turn nearly all of the US military bases in Asia and Europe into UN bases, (not all, but certainly most of them) and develop a formidible standing UN military force to occupy them. The cold war is over. They are very expensive to maintain. We need to put a strong international face on the war against terror instead of going it alone.

Getting rid of the single vote veto and a standing force that can be quickly mobilized is essential to solving the UN's problems. UN inspection units should be granted entry to any/all countries at all times, to everywhere but that state's military installations, to investigate violations of international law and to report back to the UN. Only then will the UN have the means and the teeth necessary to fulfill its mission.

That's my 2 cents anyway on ways to begin dealing with the world's most pressing problems today.

|

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home