President George W. Bush could choose military action over diplomacy and bomb Iran's nuclear facilities next year, political analysts in Washington agree. "I think he is going to do it," John Pike, director of Globalsecurity.org, a military issues think tank, told AFP. "They are going to bomb WMD facilities next summer," he added, referring to nuclear facilities Iran says are for peaceful uses and Washington insists are really intended to make nuclear bombs, or weapons of mass destruction (WMD). "It would be a limited military action to destroy their WMD capabilities" added the analyst, believing a US military invasion of Iran is not on the table. US journalist Seymour Hersh also said at the weekend that White House hawks led by Vice President Dick Cheney were intent on attacking Iran with or without the approval of the US Congress, both houses of which switch from Republican to Democratic control in January after the November 7 legislative elections. The New Yorker weekly published an article by Hersh saying that one month before the elections, Cheney held a meeting on Iran in which he said the military option would never be discarded. The White House promptly issued a statement saying the article was "riddled with inaccuracies." Joseph Cirincione, Senior Vice President for National Security and International Policy at the Center for American Progress, a Democrat-friendly think tank, also believes the US government could decide to attack Iran. "It is not realistic but it does not mean we won't do it," he told AFP in an interview. "It is less likely after the elections but it is still very possible." "If you look at what the administration is doing, it seems that it is going to inevitably lead us to a military conflict," he said, adding that no alternative solution was being sought, including discussions with Iran on Iraq, which could lead to talks on Iran's nuclear program and role in the region. "Senior members of the (Bush) administration remain seized with the idea that the regime in Iran must be removed," Cirincione said. "The nuclear program is one reason, but their deeper agenda is this belief that American military power can be used to fundamentally transform the regimes in the Middle East," he added. With the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, hardliners in the government have lost one of their leading advocates, and his replacement, former former Central Intelligence Agency chief Robert Gates, has in the past favored direct talks with Iran, said the expert. "But they remain within the administration at the highest level, the office of the vice president, the national security council staff, perhaps the president himself," Cirincione added. He also accused neoconservative circles of promoting the military option against Tehran. In a Sunday op-ed piece in the Los Angeles Times, Joshua Muarvchik, resident scholar at the neoconservative American Enterprise Institute, called for getting tough with Iran. "We must bomb Iran," he said. "The path of diplomacy and sanctions has led nowhere ... Our options therefore are narrowed to two: we can prepare to live with a nuclear-armed Iran, or we can use force to prevent it." Israel has also been pushing Washington to get tough on Iran. Israeli Deputy Defense Minister Ephraim Sneh did not rule out preventive military action to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, in a recent interview with the English-language Jerusalem Post. However, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad seems unperturbed. On Monday he said Israel was incapable of launching a military attack on Iran's nuclear sites and called Israeli threats "propaganda." Copyright © 2006 AFP | 
rate
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 35
In the old days, when all we had to worry about was 3,000 Soviet ICBMs aimed at Keokuk, there was a sort of gentleman's agreement called "no first use." It was all part of the intricate and maddeningly informal calculation labeled "MAD" (mutually-assured destruction).
The gang that runs the West Wing these days doesn't get any of that. When you are the mightiest power that ever kicked butt in the world, and it's time to put a bit of stick about, you use the tools at your disposal, the thinking goes.
Iran's nuclear processing sites are distributed, hardened, and in some cases underground. Dick Cheney and his pals must be salivating to use their shiny new line of "bunker buster" nukes, the stupidly-labeled "tactical" or "battlefield" nuclear weapons.
If you want to talk about changing the equation for worldwide nuclear proliferation, forget about the India deal. Wait for that early spring morning when the nukes fly.
Why do we threaten to use nuclear weapons against a country that wants nuclear weapons? To show them that nuclear weapons are wrong.
Both Korea and Iran have cited the US attacking Iraq as their reason for wanting to have nuclear capabilities. It turns out there is a big bully on the block and these countries feel they might need a little protection.
Sorta says it all, don't it? Do all the partisan bitching you want, it doesn't change a thing.
I can hear you libs now "they only did it when Bush started to threaten them." If you believe that, you're dumber than I thought. The Clinton administration gave both North Korea and Iran new technology in return for them stopping their programs in the past. The idea that both countries stopped those programs totally when Clinton gave them MORE nuclear technology is simply laughable. They only made the programs KNOWN under Bush as a deterrent, they hope.
I love to watch liberals pretend to be so much SMARTER than everyone else as they forget the past and ignore inconvenient facts.
I do not want anybody to have nuclear weapons. I just do not understand what makes us so powerful that we decide who can have the technology and who cant. I know you both think that we are such a benevolent nation. But we are the ones who have threatened to use nuclear weapons. There is a reason that the rest of the world looks at Bush as a greater threat to peace than Ahmadinejad .
Wrong, but that is no surprise. The EU and the US has actually offered to build light water reactors in a deal to try and get them to stop enriching uranium. If we didn't want them to have it, why would we offer to build it for them? If you had any clue at all, and paid attention to what is actually going on you would be well aware that the only goal is to stop them from enriching uranium until the IAEA can be certain they do not have a weapons program...
"Both Korea and Iran have cited the US attacking Iraq as their reason for wanting to have nuclear capabilities"
Really? When was it that Iran has ever admitted to seeking nuclear weapons? Since they would have to admit to the program to make such a statement...you really have no idea what you are talking about do you? But yet you keep talking...
The PNAC thought that everybody would just lay down at the knowledge of our awesome power. These men are deluded. Their aim is world dominiation. They are only interrested in peace if they can benefit from it. We are not the only people on the planet who matter.
I have had enough with the rhetoric, nastiness and hate you spew.
I think I have said this enough. I still believe that there are a lot of very good people in this country . That if they understood what our governement was doing in our names they would not stand for it. if they saw the pictures of the dead they would be mortified. I do not think you are one of those people.
You have shown that you ar eone of those people who truely just does not care so I have nothing left to say to you.
So nuclear capabilities protect them? Not weapons? Which is what you meant about both....didn't even touch the other quote you lied about though, couldn't try and spin that one away?
Christine, I have read your articles and many of your comments. You lie, plain and simple. You make outrageous comparisons (eg. between torture and genocide:" The German people can claim that they did not know what was happening to the Jews.. WE CANNOT! ") You are so filled with hate that you feel that you are justified in your actions. I do care about what happens in the world and how we are involved, but I will stick with the facts, not your line of rhetoric.
As far as not saying anything further to me, that would be just fine with me. You poked your nose in another discussion I was in, so I figured I could find your latest stupidity and throw it back at you....you do make it easy, almost as easy as Tony...
Jeff yes, while not all democrats (see Libermann) are fools most Liberal democrats are... Pelosi an example...
Yes george the Israeli's did take one out, not sure if it was Iraq or Iranian. but when their leaders had "juavos" they didn't hesitate. Of course now they need to ask us becose they would be flying over our troops in Iraq... but I think we'd be ok with that... sergical strike... sharp precise and quick...
Freedom fries for me please!
The reality is that the USA does not have the resources to serve as global cop without support from other nations. Pre-emptive strikes are very expensive in more ways than money. When we act as if we can go it alone, that just plays into the hands of certain people.
Emmet,
Pelosi, being a liberal Democrat is a fool? These are the things I recently heard her say that she will do (that the "conservative Republicans" with brains did not do):
- she will find out who was responsible for sending troops into battle without proper armor and armored vehicles, and she will have them fired.
- she will look into the no bid contracts to find out where billions of our tax dollars went, including six packs of Coke that were billed at $45.00 each.
- she will bring oversight back to congress, something they are charged with doing.
The liberal Democrats fools will do this, while the conservative Republicans with brains couldn't find even one issue to issue even one subpoena for.
I guess we have different opinions about what "fools" do or do not do.
Diplomacy?? When that fails, bomb their nuclear facilities.
The Bush administration has asked Israel not to act now without "coordinating" with the US. I personally consider it unlikely that they will act alone this time around, especially given the eagerness of members of the Bush administration, particluarly Dick Cheney, to do the job themselves.
As annoying and potentially dangerous as is the Iranian nuclear program, and as enticing an option as "taking them out" might sound, it is not clear how successful that campaign would be. The nuclear sites (and especially those that could be involved in weapons development) are not well documented. They are distributed, and probably hardened in some cases. Human intelligence is sketchy at this point. It is unlikely that even a "shock and awe"-level bombing campaign would destroy all the facilities.
Survival of the bombing would be proclaimed a "victory" by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. (Think back to the First Gulf War and Sadaam, or more recently, the Israeli incursion into Lebanon--and the elation of Hezbollah once they survived that campaign.) Most countries in the area, including those closest to the US now, would find unity in opposition to the US. And forget about a ground war in Iran. It is relatively easy, in my opinion, to see how this could turn out badly for the US.
This issue is extraordinarily complicated and difficult, not least given the disaster that has unfolded next door in Iraq. Double-or-nothing may not be the optimal calculation for reducing tensions in the area.
Addressing the original premise of the article, I agree an aggressive propaganda effort by the Bush administration will precede any attempt to take action unless they can get a "provoked" attack. I don't think Americans would buy any attempt to involve us more in either Korea or Iran without a concerted effort of "selling" an attack.
Interestingly, you have provoked the same conservative crowd that still believes in the tooth fairy and WMD's. They can't even tolerate a Canadian when Canada has aboout 1/2 their army supporting U.S. efforts in Afghanistan and has cost them many many lives.
Our best defense against Bush and those who want to lead us into World War III is oversight and debate. Thanks!
Pelosi has already taken impeachment off the table. I would like to see some serious investigating. I think if the house starts looking into the closed bids, the fraud in the contracts in Iraq and Louisianna........we will start seeing those resignations piling in.
Quite frankly, I thought I would be more out for blood. I just want to see those corrupt bastards out. I do think it is important though that the people in this country finally get to see just what has been happening, just who these men really are.
We need some honest investigating into pre 911 intelligence, 911 and prewar intelligence. I think when people realize that these men intentionally led us into this debacle and supported war profiteering along the way they might be a little outraged.
I think that Gates will probably confirm Gates. I think some important questions need to be answered though. Gates is also a intel cherry picker. People are always whining about having to pick between 2 evils and now you want me to choose between these two jerks.
This country deserves better.