Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.

Hersh: The Iran Plans

by whataboutbob Sun Apr 9th, 2006 at 08:15:05 AM EST

Seymour Hersh has a sobering article in the April 17th edition of the New Yorker Magazine that is well worth the time to read: The Iran Plans

The Bush Administration, while publicly advocating diplomacy in order to stop Iran from pursuing a nuclear weapon, has increased clandestine activities inside Iran and intensified planning for a possible major air attack.(...) One of the military’s initial option plans calls for the use of a bunker-buster tactical nuclear weapon, such as the B61-11, against underground nuclear sites.

A government consultant with close ties to the civilian leadership in the Pentagon said that Bush was “absolutely convinced that Iran is going to get the bomb” if it is not stopped. He said that the President believes that he must do “what no Democrat or Republican, if elected in the future, would have the courage to do,” and “that saving Iran is going to be his legacy.”

(...) “If you attack,” the high-ranking diplomat told me in Vienna, “Ahmadinejad will be the new Saddam Hussein of the Arab world, but with more credibility and more power. You must bite the bullet and sit down with the Iranians.” The diplomat went on, “There are people in Washington who would be unhappy if we found a solution. They are still banking on isolation and regime change. This is wishful thinking.” He added, “The window of opportunity is now.”

The question many are asking is, is this just a bluff to get Iran scared and to the negotiating table...or is Bush truly crazy enough to use "tactical nuclear weapons" on Iran? And can anything be done to stop this madness?


Display:
The article is 10 pages long, but well worth reading...and it points out that Bush and Ahmadinejad are very similar in their messianic views...so it is high stakes poker. It is a very difficult situation...I am resorting to prayer on this one.

"Once in awhile we get shown the light, in the strangest of places, if we look at it right" - Hunter/Garcia
by whataboutbob on Sun Apr 9th, 2006 at 08:19:55 AM EST

I am resorting to prayer on this one

 Are you calling for a Sunday prayer-meeting? Catholic ? Greec-Orthodox? Muslim ? Reborn Christian?....
Before you know it, we'l have a religious war here...

The struggle of man against tyranny is the struggle of memory against forgetting.(Kundera)
by Elco B (elcob at scarlet dot be) on Sun Apr 9th, 2006 at 08:30:23 AM EST
[ Parent ]
where's the </snark technology> when we need it?

On another note, there are more good articles and diaries this topic over at the daily Kos. Some think the pentagon is behind the leak of this story, and the Washington Post has published something on it too today...

Wash Post supports Hersh's nucear strike claim

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/4/8/235510/7871

Pentagon Palace Coup against Bush/Cheney

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/4/9/1464/33318

"Once in awhile we get shown the light, in the strangest of places, if we look at it right" - Hunter/Garcia

by whataboutbob on Sun Apr 9th, 2006 at 08:36:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, Bush is crazy enough to use nukes, because for a man who feels - and is - a nobody, it would be the ultimate power trip.

There are no good strategic reasons for using nukes, and plenty of good strategic reasons not to use them:

  1. A 1kT yield is militarily useless against bunkers. Larger yields would do the job, but being ground bursts, would potentially spread fall-out all the way into Russia, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Israel, depending on which way the wind was blowing. Some parts of Wales are still dealing with the fallout from Chernobyl, so ignoring fall-out is really not a good idea.

  2. 1kT is bad enough. Using anything as a tactical bunker buster more could really, really, really piss off the rest of the world.

  3. The bunker buster idea is nonsense. All you get is a conventional nuke going off under the minimal cover of 10-20ft of rock. In terms of cratering and fall out, the difference between this and a ground burst are minimal.

  4. The Pentagon apparently believes it can keep the Strait of Hormuz open. This is fantasy. It can't.

...And so on. You can make a long list proving that the idea is suicidally stupid. But Bush is suicidally stupid. So reality is not the issue here.

The bigger question is how the rest of the world, especially Russia, China, India, and the Saudis, responds. So far, no one is saying anything, which makes it very hard to tell.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Sun Apr 9th, 2006 at 09:18:06 AM EST
One big question you would have to ask is how the use of nuclear weapons would play with the populations of current members of the coalition.

If the US starts using Nuclear weapons in a confrontation, many of the undecided in the UK will get pushed over into the anti war camp very quickly. This could be to the extent of forcing the UK government to withdraw from Iraq. at one stroke the US will have increased the area of battle, and reduced the forces available to fight.

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.

by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Sun Apr 9th, 2006 at 10:05:09 AM EST
[ Parent ]
The Pentagon apparently believes it can keep the Strait of Hormuz open. This is fantasy. It can't.

The person quoted as saying that is a civilian consultant. Hersh presents the uniformed military as vehemently against any use of nukes - to the point of a formal, categorical statement by Joint Chiefs and threats of mass protest resignations. The military is also presented as a lot more pessimistic about the blowback from even a conventional strike.  The US officer corps is a pretty right wing, conservative group, but they aren't insane.

by MarekNYC on Sun Apr 9th, 2006 at 10:47:42 AM EST
[ Parent ]
1 Kt useless?

1 Kt is one thousand tonnes of high explosive!

The biggest bunker buster of WW2 was the British Grand Slam which carried 4 tonnes of high explosive and could blow through 40 meters of ground or 4-7 meters of reinforced concrete.

The weapon the Americans are probably going to use is the  B61 Mod 11. The weapon has variable yields starting at 10 Kt (or maybe as low* as 0,3 Kt) and up to 340 Kt.

* Wow! Only 300 hundred tonnes of TNT equivalent! That's only 25 times as much as a MOAB! What a mini-nuke!

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid on Sun Apr 9th, 2006 at 12:02:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The bunkers are - so we're told - 30m thick, and maybe 50ft undergroud.

So yes - a 1kt nuke is useless against them.  The Iranians always knew a stand-off was likely and seem to have planned accordingly.

I also think there's a psychological threshold around 1kt. Under that you can argue - no matter how uconvincingly - that the bombing is tactical and not strategic. And some people will nod their heads and believe you, because for a semi-buried detonation, the radius of 1psi of overpressure - which means broken windows and not much more - will be localised to half a mile or so. (Fall-out remains a big problem. But they probably won't be thinking that far ahead.)

The higher the yield, the less believable that argument becomes. Once you get over 15kt you're into Hiroshima territory, way on the wrong side of the red line.

Anything over 100kt would be horrendous. I don't even want to think about the reaction to that.

My point was that any nuke-based plan has a fundamental flaw. If the US wants to say 'Look - tactical!' the bombing won't work. If it increases the yield, any pretense at 'tactical' soon disappears and it turns into a much more dangerous game.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Sun Apr 9th, 2006 at 12:49:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Maybe you are right about 1 Kt being useless. But it still is one hell of a blast.

The idea that they could get away with nuclear weapons as long as they are tactical is delusional.

The big weapon=strategic/small weapon=tactical is flawed anyway.

Any nuclear strike on Iran, no matter how small, will by definition be a strategic attack.

While a 300 Kt strike on the advancing red hordes in the Fulda gap (thank god those days are gone) might very well be tactical as long as it is not a first-use attack.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid on Sun Apr 9th, 2006 at 01:08:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, sure. But it's about PR and spin as well as body count.

Legally the doctrine of pre-emption is already insane.

And from where I am all war is delusional. The fact that we're even discussing this reminds me - again - that we're all living on Planet Crazy.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Sun Apr 9th, 2006 at 01:28:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I thought a "tactical" nuclear weapon was one that went off in Germany?

Sorry, bad cold war joke.

Seriously, I can't see the citizens of major nations whose governments support the "war on terror" stomaching cooperation with a state which actively uses nuclear weapons, even "small" ones. Those governments would be under intense pressure to withdraw support and leave the Americans to fight their battle alone.

Idiot/Savant

by IdiotSavant on Sun Apr 9th, 2006 at 08:28:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Excellent post.

One potential fallout recipient you omitted is Iraq.

There are over 100,000 Americans there, and a lot of citizens of 'friendly' countries (to use the fairly abhorrent 'us-and-them' categories).  How much risk would these people be at directly from nuclear fallout if the worst happens?

by GreatGame2 (fishy_logic_at_yahoo.co.uk) on Sun Apr 9th, 2006 at 01:17:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]
well the best person to quote on this would be bush

Many Americans have raised legitimate questions: about the nature of the threat; about the urgency of action -- why be concerned now; about the link between Iraq developing weapons of terror, and the wider war on terror. These are all issues we've discussed broadly and fully within my administration. And tonight, I want to share those discussions with you.

First, some ask why Iraq is different from other countries or regimes that also have terrible weapons. While there are many dangers in the world, the threat from Iraq stands alone -- because it gathers the most serious dangers of our age in one place. Iraq's weapons of mass destruction are controlled by a murderous tyrant who has already used chemical weapons to kill thousands of people. This same tyrant has tried to dominate the Middle East, has invaded and brutally occupied a small neighbor, has struck other nations without warning, and holds an unrelenting hostility toward the United States.

By its past and present actions, by its technological capabilities, by the merciless nature of its regime, Iraq is unique. As a former chief weapons inspector of the U.N. has said, "The fundamental problem with Iraq remains the nature of the regime, itself. Saddam Hussein is a homicidal dictator who is addicted to weapons of mass destruction."

If the US uses nuclear weapons, then dosn't Bush's speech apply just as well if you  put his name in in place of Saddam's? Would Iran be justified in making preemptive strikes by the logic that Bush used in starting the Iraq adventure?

Any idiot can face a crisis - it's day to day living that wears you out.

by ceebs (ceebs (at) eurotrib (dot) com) on Sun Apr 9th, 2006 at 10:23:38 AM EST
And can anything be done to stop this madness?

In addition to writing to members of Congress and calling into to talk-shows, how about doing what the illegal immigrants did in L.A., and later in New York, or what the French students and labor unions have been doing in France?

I know that there were massive protests in the U.S. on the eve of the Iraq war and that they did diddly-squat.  But this was because the mainstream media were too spineless to cover them, and were supporting the general pro-war national groupthink that was going on.  Since then, many, many Americans have wisened up, and have turned against this administration, and I suspect (though I may be wrong) that there is so much pent up anger that a trigger issue -- such as a looming military confrontation against Iran, the recent revelation by Scooter Libby about Bush's selective disclosure of classified information, more revelations about the NSA surveillance program, etc. -- might cause a huge range of upset people to come out into the streets, protest PEACEFULLY, about a cascade of issues, and this time have a REAL impact on national policy.  

Why?  Because I think the mainstream media has sobred up since 2003, will cover these protests, and will force Congress -- and perhaps even Bush directly -- to take into consideration the protesters' gripes.  Of course, if this were to really work, it should not just happen in the usual liberal bastions such as New York, Los Angeles, Boston, etc., but in relatively conservative, "heartland" locations as well.  Otherwise, the demonstrations could easily be written off my the conservative media -- and conservative voters -- as a phenomenon isolated to extreme liberal enclaves.

Ah forget about it.  This is all just wishful thinking.

Point n'est besoin d'espérer pour entreprendre, ni de réussir pour persévérer. - Charles le Téméraire

by marco on Sun Apr 9th, 2006 at 10:47:07 AM EST
And can anything be done to stop this madness?

European countries could issue public statements that categorically say that any use of nuclear weapons under such circumstances would lead to the suspension of the US from NATO and the shuttering of US bases in Europe, diplomatically surrounded by statements that of course the whole idea is ridiculous and they're sure that the US isn't contemplating anything like that.

by MarekNYC on Sun Apr 9th, 2006 at 10:53:40 AM EST
They could also issue public statements that the use of nuclear weapons or other weapons of mass destruction is a crime against humanity, and that they will take all steps they can in every legal forum available to ensure that everyone involved - from the policymakers down to the lowest mook who loaded the bomb onto the plane - is held personally responsible for it, and that they will be hunted till the day they die, just like those responsible for the Holocaust.

Idiot/Savant

by IdiotSavant on Sun Apr 9th, 2006 at 08:35:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]
We have this to start with :

The International Court of Justice (ICJ), which has its seat in The Hague(The Netherlands), the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, on 8 july 1996 unanimously voted for this :

A threat or use of force by means of nuclear weapons that is contrary to Article 2, paragraph 4, of the United Nations Charter and that fails to meet all the requirements of Article 51, is unlawful;

The full document is very long and need to be studied carefully to find the real significance. I have not the competence to do that .
In Belgium we use this as an argument to put legal and political pressure on the government to force the US to  take away their nuclear bombs from Belgian territory. (The US has one such storage base here with estimated 10 bombs)So far we had little succes, but the political consensus about is growing and the arguments of the ICJ have a very important influence.

The struggle of man against tyranny is the struggle of memory against forgetting.(Kundera)

by Elco B (elcob at scarlet dot be) on Mon Apr 10th, 2006 at 10:28:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Since when have European countries grown such a spine? I'm afraid the truth is that when America roars, very few countries stand up against the Bush government. The majority cowers and hope it will go away - they act to protect their economy and self-interests.

I'm supposed to be the optimist here, but in this case...

by Nomad (Bjinse) on Mon Apr 10th, 2006 at 05:33:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]
We do not need to worry, agonize, fear or cross fingers. Bush will launch the nuclear war.

Pretty soon, the world will scramble around to delude ourselves that all is not lost, things are not quite as bad as we initially thought, maybe it is a good thing that Iran has lost its nuclear capabilities, look the oil price is beginning to stabilize, at least america reinforced it nuclear deterrence against other rogue states what's wrong with that, let's bygone be bygone what's more important is humanitarian relief to poor Iranians, nuclear bombs did save more lives than killed don't you know, etc, etc.

We should not be surprised if not only Tony but Chirac and Putin fly to Washington, and call upon the world jointly with Bush that we must stand united behind america at a moment of tragedy in order not to "repeat the tragedy of Iraq."

Those who died in Hiroshima and Nagasaki (and all those Chinese, Koreans, Filipinos and other Asians who suffered under our occupation) died in vain. May their souls rest in peace.



I will become a patissier, God willing.

by tuasfait on Sun Apr 9th, 2006 at 11:12:17 AM EST
This has got to be a bluff.  If American officials start throwing nukes around, there will be no "coalition" -- and, by "coalition," I assume we mean Britain.  Tony Blair wouldn't dare to support Bush on this.  The Congress and the Commons would both turn on the executives.  The Democrats are already going to pound Bush into the ground for this.  (If they refuse to, the base will walk away.)

Bush doesn't have the troops to invade.  He can't start a draft, because it would never make it through Congress (and the Supreme Court would tell him to go to hell -- yes, even the right-wing justices).  Iraq is a mess.  The entire world doesn't trust America, and it will refuse to go along with this.

His hands are tied.  This is nothing but a political play to get Iran back to the negotiations.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Sun Apr 9th, 2006 at 12:56:55 PM EST
You don't bluff a nation by threatening to nuke them unless you're absolutely convinced they're harmless.  You also only do it in private.  If this was done by the Bushies, it's because someone is trying to get Iran to commit some sort of provocation in self-defense.
by tjbuff (timhess@adelphia.net) on Sun Apr 9th, 2006 at 01:11:14 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I'm very skeptical about the use of nuclear weapons - and I tend to see it as another of those "just fucking watch it" poses that the US has been adopting of late. The Iranians seem more than happy to talk - but they've drawn their red lines now, and it will take substantive concessions to get them to suspend enrichment again.

The problem is that there can be no meaningful negotiations without the US taking part - and the Bush administration is still trying to pretend that it can avoid direct bilateral talks with Iran, so there is a stalemate. I suspect that there is a pretty serious internal struggle going on at present between those who recognise that direct negotiations are the only option and those who would rather hold out in the hopes that circumstances will become more propitious for military action in the future. At any rate, the hawks are shouting very loudly, which suggests that they're worried about the Bush administration being dragged into talks with Iran and the horrendous consequences of doing so.

Furthermore, the administration is rapidly destabilizing under the weight of Iraq, plummeting domestic support, domestic spying revelations, Fitzgerald et al - it will only take an "event" or two for it to collapse in rather ugly fashion.

If the Bush administration were to go down the nuclear strike route then the consequences would be ugly - an anwful lot of innocent Americans abroad would get caught up in a very nasty backlash, and US corporations can forget about their foreign investment portfolios for a few decades to come.

by londanium on Sun Apr 9th, 2006 at 02:42:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]
If the Bush administration were to go down the nuclear strike route then the consequences would be ugly - an anwful lot of innocent Americans abroad would get caught up in a very nasty backlash, and US corporations can forget about their foreign investment portfolios for a few decades to come.

Agreed -- an additional reason for why I don't think the Bush administration was seriously considering a nuclear attack.  Bush is also going to take an enormous hit if Fitzgerald does, in fact, tie he and Cheney directly to the Plame case, which seems more and more likely everyday given Libby's recent testimony.  So much for "falling on the sword," I guess.

I don't think the negotiations are going to work, whether bilateral or multilateral.  But, then again, I'm not fearful of a nuclear Iran.  If Iran were to even attempt a launch against the US, the US would turn it into a giant wasteland.  The same would be true if Iran provided weapons to al-Qaeda.  The Iranians have no incentive to attack us or to enable others to attack us, which is why I've changed my mind on the issue.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.

by Drew J Jones (pedobear@pennstatefootball.com) on Sun Apr 9th, 2006 at 03:03:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]
He can't start a draft, because it would never make it through Congress (and the Supreme Court would tell him to go to hell -- yes, even the right-wing justices).

Do you mean the Supreme Court would tell him to go to hell if Congress rejected the draft and Bush tried to levy one somehow anyway?

Point n'est besoin d'espérer pour entreprendre, ni de réussir pour persévérer. - Charles le Téméraire

by marco on Sun Apr 9th, 2006 at 09:05:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]