With some members of the UN security council apparently determined to resist creating a paper trail the US could use to justify attacking Iran for what may or may not be a clandestine nuclear weapons program, what we now know to call “chatter” regarding the possibility of such an attack outside the framework of UN resolutions is increasing.

London’s Daily Telegraph published a story yesterday asserting that British defence officials would be meeting with Downing Street today “to discuss possible military strikes against Iran” because the Brits think “an American-led attack, designed to destroy Iran’s ability to develop a nuclear bomb, is “inevitable” if Teheran’s leaders fail to comply with United Nations demands to freeze their uranium enrichment programme.”

At the same time, the Washington Post published a story reporting on US intelligence concerns that “Iran would respond to U.S. military strikes on its nuclear sites by deploying its intelligence operatives and Hezbollah teams to carry out terrorist attacks worldwide,” including against US troops next door in Iraq. The story quoted a former CIA officer as warning that an attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities “would be regarded as an act of war,” something one would hope but can’t be certain is evident to the White House.

Elsewhere, US ambassador to the UN John Bolton said of a UN security council statement on Iran that “explicit mention of the Security Council’s responsibility to maintain peace was meant to demonstrate that it can impose punitive measures,” while China’s ambassador said the statement was a “strong message to support diplomatic efforts leading to a solution and to support the IAEA.”

The Telegraph story notes that British consideration of military options runs counter to foreign minister Jack Straw’s statement of a few weeks ago that an attack on Iran was “inconceivable,” and says that the US hopes “the military operation will be a multinational mission, but defence chiefs believe that the Bush administration is prepared to launch the attack on its own or with the assistance of Israel, if there is little international support,” with British assistance limited to “to the use of the RAF’s highly secret airborne early warning aircraft.”

It’s difficult to tell whether the Telegraph story is a preemptive version of the steady stream of leaked memos retroactively describing the US determination to invade Iraq or a cooperative venture aimed at increasing the pressure on Iran to force full cooperation with the International Atomic Energy Association— whose head, Mohammed El Baradei, told Reuters over the weekend that Iran doesn’t pose an immediate threat and that “We need to lower the pitch. My message to Iran: the international community is getting impatient and you need to respond by arming me with information.”

This should all sound familiar, given that we went through an eerily similar progression with Iraq not so very long ago. Writing on Juan Cole’s Informed Comment site, former ambassador Gerald Helman says that “the failure by the U.S. to get a forceful statement from the President of the Security Council admonishing Iran to cease nuclear enrichment activities” is a direct consequence of US attempts to use security council resolutions against Iraq as cover for that war.

The U.S. fell short in two respects: first, a Presidential Statement, although it can signal more forceful action to come, is not binding and carries no legal implications. Moreover, the Statement obtained is weak on its face and falls far short of the hints of Chapter 7 enforcement action in the event of noncompliance that the U.S. sought. Such references were removed at the insistence of Russia, China and probably others because of the manner in which the U.S. in 2003 abused the Security Council and it’s authority by invading Iraq and citing present and past resolutions as justifying and even authorizing the invasion.

There seems now a stubborn reluctance to allow the creation of a comparable legislative record regarding Iran. In turn, this will seriously impede whatever political leverage the U.S. hopes to exert over Iran to cease its enrichment activities. The stakes are real, but because of its Iraq adventure the ability of the U.S. to manage them short of force is diminished. ‘

The Pentagon recently announced testing of a truly massive bomb — 700 tons, as opposed to the 4,500 pound bombs that are at present the largest in our bomber-borne conventional arsenal, or even the 9-ton “Mother of All Bombs” delivered via C-130 cargo planes — in Nevada. The test, code-name “Divine Strake,” is aimed at exploring the effectives of non-nuclear bunker busters, and the Pentagon spokesman handling the publicity for the test is, um, excited.

“We have several very large penetrators we’re developing,” James Tegnelia, head of the Defence Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) told US defence reporters. “We also have – are you ready for this? – an explosively formed charge that we’re going to be putting in a tunnel in Nevada … and that represents to us the largest single explosive that we could imagine doing conventionally to solve that problem.”

The explosive used will be ammonium nitrate soaked in fuel oil – a cheap but potent combination. “I don’t want to sound glib here but it is the first time in Nevada that you’ll see a mushroom cloud over Las Vegas since we stopped testing nuclear weapons,” Mr Tegnelia said.

Oooh. Large penetrators. Yummy.

The bomb packs the explosive equivalent of 593 tons of TNT, or .6 kilotons. It weighs roughly six times the payload capacity of the largest cargo plane in the US fleet. Either the Pentagon is working on a bomb that would have to be towed behind a fleet of C-5 Galaxies, or they’re going ahead with nuclear bunker-busting research despite the Congressional ban on it.

I looked up “Strake” in the Oxford English Dictionary. The most appropos definitions seemed to be “Some particular signal with the horn” and “A ray, beam of light.” It’s comforting, in a way, that someone in the Pentagon has an extraordinarily wide vocabulary, although I suppose it could just be a typo. The “Divine” is a bit troubling. In another sense it’s comforting that the Pentagon is testing either a conventional bomb that can’t be delivered or a nuclear one that can’t be built any time soon, but if there’s one thing the Bush administration have incontrovertibly demonstrated, it’s that they’ll take the least rational approach to any problem confronting them; if it appears as though Iran’s nuclear facilities and retaliatory capacity can’t be dealt with by existing weapons, they’ll just lean on military analysts until the latter change their tune.

While reasoned argument is unlikely to impinge upon any administration decision to attack Iraq, there are some indicators that might alert us when to panic. The Strategy Page helpfully lists the Top Ten Signs We’re About to Attack Iran, most of which are readily available to the concerned citizen.

1. – The U.S. Navy stages a “surge exercise” and moves six carrier battle groups into the Indian Ocean.

2. – A “regularly scheduled exercise” moves Patriot Missile Batteies [sic] to Iraq, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia. These exercises happen from time to time, but if they happen when other things are happening…

3. — Movement of B-52 and B1B bombers to the island of Diego Garcia (in the Indian Ocean).

4. — Deployment of F117 stealth bombers and F-22 fighters to anywhere in the Persian Gulf.

5. — Deployment of B-2 Stealth Bombers to Guam, where there are special facilities for maintaining these aircraft.

6. — Lockdown of Whitman Air Force Base (where most B-2 bombers are stationed) in Missouri.

7. — Increased delivery of Pizza to Pentagon

8. –Sudden loss of cell service near some air force bases (from which heavy bombers would depart). At the same time, there would be sightings of Middle Eastern looking guys around these bases, trying to get their cell phones to work, while being observed by what appears to be FBI agents.

9. Deployment of KC-135/KC-10 aerial tankers to Diego Garcia, Guam and the Persian Gulf.

10. America asks nations neighboring Iran for basing and over flight rights.

Maybe this time around the Brits will leak the “Damn the torpedoes” memos as they’re written rather than after the fact. If not, you now have all the information you need to make timely purchases of oil stocks and duct tape in bulk.

We leave you with the venerable Bill Safire’s definition of leadership: “When the unthinkable becomes the inevitable.”

Bookmark and Share

Close Bookmark and Share This Page

Save to Browser Favorites / Bookmarks

Ask backflip blinklist BlogBookmark Bloglines BlogMarks Blogsvine BuddyMarks BUMPzee! CiteULike co.mments Connotea del.icio.us

Digg diigo DotNetKicks DropJack dzone Facebook Fark Faves Feed Me Links Friendsite folkd.com Furl Google

Hugg Jamespot Jeqq Kaboodle kirtsy linkaGoGo LinkedIn LinksMarker Ma.gnolia Mister Wong Mixx MySpace MyWeb

Netvouz Newsvine oneview OnlyWire PlugIM Propeller Reddit Rojo Segnalo Shoutwire Simpy Slashdot Sphere

Sphinn Spurl Squidoo StumbleUpon Technorati ThisNext Twitter Webride Windows Live Worlds Movies Yahoo!

Email This to a Friend

Copy HTML: 

 If you like this then please subscribe to the RSS Feed.

Powered by Bookmarkify™

More »

Powered by Bookmarkify™