BTC News: If It Says ‘News,’ It Must Be True » Blog Archive

06
Apr

The case for a US attack on Iran

The Agonist’s Sean-Paul Kelley has responded to concerns about a US attack on Iran expressed here and by Steve Clemons at The Washington Note. Sean-Paul says that the concerns are overblown and that the rhetorical escalation from both sides is simply posturing in service of staking out their respective negotiating positions.

He may be right. In a sane world, he would be right. But we’re not in a sane world, and it’s worth examining what may be the administration’s case for military action against Iran.

The administration have to this point laid out four objections to Iran: they are providing explosive devices to the insurgency in Iraq and otherwise “meddling” there; they are probably developing a nuclear weapons program; they are a repressive, anti-democratic regime; and they are sponsors of worldwide terrorism. Iran is a charter member of the Axis of Evil and is specifically mentioned no fewer than 10 times in the administration’s new National Security Strategy (Adobe Acrobat file), which stresses the US right to preemptive attacks on other countries.

Without further ado …

==============

25 Years of Deception, Repression and Terror

When the Islamic Revolution of 1979 overthrew the legitimate government of Iran, among the regime’s first acts was an assault on the US embassy in Tehran which led to the seizure of more than 60 US diplomatic personnel and other citizens, who were subjected to threats and abuse during a period of 444 days until then-President Jimmy Carter secured their release by committing the US to a policy of political and military non-intervention in Iraq’s affairs.

We have been reaping the results of that misguided promise for more than 25 years. Iran has become the primary author of state-sponsored terrorism throughout the world, providing assistance to terrorist groups in South America, the Indian subcontinent, and throughout the Middle East, particularly in Lebanon and the Palestinian territories. Iran is responsible for assassinations of opponents to the Islamic regime within Iran and in Europe and elsewhere, and for direct attacks on US interests, including the bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon which killed 241 US Servicemen.

For many years, Iran has supported the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas, which is responsible for numerous attacks against Israeli civilians. More recently, Iran has provided technical assistance and other support to insurgents and terrorists in Iraq. The British government has documented instances in which sophisticated explosive devices similar in design to those used by Hezbullah, Iran’s Lebanese proxy group, have been used against Coalition troops, causing a number of deaths and terrible injuries.

Of primary concern is Iran’s history with respect to weapons of mass destruction. Iran is known to have used chemical weapons against military and civilian targets during the conflict with Iraq. Taken in tandem with Iran’s current effort to develop nuclear weapons, about which Iraq has consistently lied to International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors, this history of development and use of banned weapons constitutes a clear and growing threat. The world simply cannot afford a nuclear-armed Iran.

Overcoming Inertia and Objections to Action on Iran

Those who would argue for appeasement and hesitation in responding to the threat posed by Iran are living in a pre-911 world. Although no hard evidence of Iran’s nuclear weapons program has surfaced to this point, we don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld noted in other contexts that “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence,” and that has never been more true.

Others will point to the difficulties Iraq has experienced in its transition to a peaceful, democratic nation as evidence that the US should not respond to dangers in other countries and other parts of the world. But as President Bush observed, the genesis of Iraq’s transitional difficulties is the damage inflicted by Saddam Hussein on the Iraqi people’s collective psyche, which has left a legacy of deep distrust among and between Iraq’s various communities.

As Secretary of State Rice has pointed out, Iran is not Iraq, not only in geographical terms but in other important respects as well. The US enjoys a measure of popularity among Iranians unmatched elsewhere in the region, and Iran’s political system, while not up to Supreme Court standards, has provided its participants with experience in selecting leaders who have an important if secondary role in determining domestic policies. Should regime change opportunities arise in the course of efforts to temper Iran’s political and military belligerence, therefore, it is certain that the Iranian people will rise to the occasion.

There is, then, no excuse for shrinking from our national duty to confront threats as and where we find them, or from our national obligation to promote the values of freedom and democracy that will make our world a safer place for all. As Rudyard Kipling admonished this country more than a century ago, “Ye dare not stoop to less.”

“An Army of Three”

The failure by the United Nations Security Council to approve appropriate actions against Iran has left the US free to pursue a more streamlined coalition in service to our obligations to our nation’s and the world’s security interests. Although the primary burden of our operations in Iran will be assumed by the US, Genovia and the Duchy of Grand Fenwick will provide essential logistical and diplomatic support for the effort.

Operation “Top of the World, Ma!”

What follows are the outlines of a plan for incapacitating Iran’s nuclear facilities and suppressing its retaliatory capabilities. We will first note, in anticipation of concerns than an attack on Iran might impact the world oil market, that Iran cannot afford to stop pumping and selling oil any more than the developed world can afford a shortfall in oil supplies and the accompanying price shock. Like many American families, the government of Iran is living paycheck to paycheck and will need all its oil revenues to recover from the consequences of its government’s behavior. Nevertheless, this plan includes contingencies for protecting and securing Iran’s oil production and export facilities to be held in trust for the Iranian people should the Iranian government prove unable to maintain production and export activities.

Operation TOWMA

March 2003: 10+ divisions of US ground combat and support units deployed to Iraq to defend against possible Iranian retaliation for Operation TOWMA.
April 2006: Special Forces detachments deployed in England, France, Colombia, Pakistan, India, Lebanon, Iran, Syria, Jordan, Kuwait, Indonesia, the Philippines, Nigeria, Sudan, Venezuela, Afghanistan and Dillingham, Alaska, to identify and suppress Iran-sponsored terrorist organizations and individuals.
July 2006: Aircraft carriers and carrier battle groups dispatched to the Indian Ocean, including the USS Nimitz, the USS Carl Vinson, the USS Theodore Roosevelt, the USS George Washington, the USS John C. Stennis and the USS Ronald Reagan, for a total of six carriers, 12 guided-missile cruisers, 12 submarines, 12 destroyers, and 6 guided-missile frigates. The USS Nimitz will be attached to accomodate the press (the USS George H.W. Bush is unavailable at this time).
August 2006: Patriot Missile batteries deployed to Genovia, Grand Fenwick and Israel.
September 2006: B-52 and B-1B bombers deployed to Diego Garcia; F-117 stealth bombers and F-22 fighters deployed to Qatar and Kuwait; B-2 stealth bombers deployed to Guam; KC-135/KC-10 aerial tankers deployed to Diego Garcia, Guam and Qatar.
October 1, 2006: Dick Cheney deployed to Capitol Hill to seek Congressional resolution authorizing use of force.
October 2, 2006: With the help of Senate Democrats, Dick Cheney obtains Congressional resolution authorizing use of force.
November 1, 2006: Operation TOWMA begins. Cruise missiles strike Iranian command and control centers and military installations. Iran is left defenseless.
November 2, 2006: Various aircraft drop various large bombs on various nuclear research facilities, which are completely destroyed.
November 3, 2006: Special Forces detachments throughout the world roll up Iran’s terror network. Except the one in Dillingham, Alaska, which succeeds in destroying the courthouse before dying under the hooves of a panicked caribou herd.
November 4, 2006: A popular revolution in Iran installs Salman Rushdie as the head of a democratic government.
November 7, 2006: Republicans sweep to victory in the Congressional elections.
November 8, 2006: Oil prices plunge. Iraq forms a government of national unity.
November 9, 2006: The Duchy of Grand Fenwick declares war on the US, and wins. Again.

Obviously there are a few holes here and there, and a few liberties taken. Grand Fenwick, for instance, dismantled its nuclear weapons program in 1959; there’s no way they could take us again. And there’s a certain lack of military expertise in play throughout the plan. But when one looks at the rhetoric employed by the administration, at the details of the national security strategy, at the faltering US efforts to move the UN security council toward sanctions against Iraq, at the Bush complaint that Saddam turned Iraq into a nation of psychos — a formulation we can probably lay at the feet of Kanan Makiya’s Republic of Fear and Makiya’s relatively recent New York Times op-ed column — and at the utter lack of conscience and self-doubt exhibited by Dick Cheney and other American Empire stalwarts, it’s not hard to see the attractions of an attack that combines preemption, Special Forces, regime change and air power, but most certainly not an icky ground war, against a country with a largely homogenous population capable of, in the right circumstances, a relatively tranquil revolution. A successful operation would validate the administration’s foreign policy delusions, rescue the presidency and preserve a Republican Congressional majority, all without recourse to the girly man’s delight, diplomacy.

What’s not to like?

Bookmark and Share

Close Bookmark and Share This Page

Save to Browser Favorites / Bookmarks

Email This to a Friend

Copy HTML:

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

This entry was posted on Thursday, April 6th, 2006 at 10:08 pm and is filed under Bush Administration, Iran, Weldon's Page. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

21 Responses to “The case for a US attack on Iran”

1
Tony Says:

With all due respect, some if not all the information you provide about Iran is false. You mentioned that the shah of Iran was the legitimate government of Iran. How can that be so when there were literally millions of Iranians out in the streets demanding the shah step down due to his repressive policies against his own people and for being a puppet of the United States government.(remember the CIA had overthrown a democratically elected leader named Mosadeq in Iran and placed the shah in power in the 1950s. And he handed down power to his son.) So how can this government be considered legitimate. Please be reasonable. Another piece of information that was false in the article dealt with the Iran-Iraq war. It was mentioned that Iran used chemical weapons against Iraq. This is put forth as though its common knowledge but this is also false. During the Iran-Iraq war, The Iranians complained that Saddam Hussein was using chemical weapons against Iran. The Iranians sought to take the issue before the United Nations but guess who intervened, you guessed it the United States government.Why?because they were the suppliers of the chemical weapons to Iraq. This is a matter of History. In fact during this time period ther is video of Doanld Rumsfield smiling up to Saddam. “when truth comes falsehood vanishes” In saying this Iam not an Iran apologist but hate to see this Administration beating the drums of war due to lies again.
April 6th, 2006 at 11:16 pm
2
weldon berger Says:

Hi, Tony. The lack of accuracy is the point, really: I’m just trying to construct an argument I think the administration might make in favor of attacking Iran, and, as with the argument they made for attacking Iraq, it contains some outright lies, some misleading statements and some delusional thinking. But that appears to me, at any rate, to be the path down which they’re trotting.
April 6th, 2006 at 11:23 pm
3
Peter Franklin Says:

Does anyone believe Israel will wait November?
April 7th, 2006 at 12:41 am
4
weldon berger Says:

Peter, I think Israel has far less interest in attacking Iran than the US does, and that they’ll do their best to talk the US out of an attack.
April 7th, 2006 at 12:48 am
5
Count Iblis Says:

I think that any military conflict involving Iran will have devastating consequences for us. Iran can destroy all of the oil installations in Iraq, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Bahrain, etc. in 15 minutes using their missiles.

We are not capable of taking out most of the Iranian missiles to prevent this. We couldn’t even prevent Saddam from launching missiles against Kuwait and Doha 3 years ago, despite all the intelligence gathering from overflights of the No-Fly zones of that easier to monitor smaller desert country.
April 7th, 2006 at 4:45 am
6
Peter Franklin Says:

Weldon, I’m afraid you’re missing the point.

Israel has every reason to blow up Iran’s
nuke plants if the US doesn’t do it soon.
April 8th, 2006 at 2:18 am
7
Peter Franklin Says:

Count,

If anyone at the Pentagon has a brain inside
his/her skull, Iran will be nuked to a glass
surface before they can fire a single missile.
April 8th, 2006 at 2:21 am
8
weldon berger Says:

Peter, Iran doesn’t have any nuclear plants, although there’s one under construction. And I have to say, your suggestion that we kill 68 million people, which is essentially what would be required to suppress any retaliation by Iran, in response to the possibility that Iran might have a nuclear weapons program underway is pretty much insane.
April 8th, 2006 at 2:47 am
9
Count Iblis Says:

Peter, exactly how do you think the Pentagon would be able to do that? Once the mssiles are fired from Iran it will be too late.
April 8th, 2006 at 3:36 am
10
Peter Franklin Says:

Weldon,

No one knows for sure if Iran has or does not
have nuke plants, so how can you state with
such confidence that they don’t? After many
years of inspections in Iran, the IAEA has
stated that it cannot certify that Iran’s
nuclear program is for civilian purposes
only. This is as close as one will come to
to a “smoking gun”, unless we wait for the
proverbial mushroom cloud. Do you presume to
know better than Dr. Baradei and his team of
“experts” when you state so emphatically that
Iran does not have nuke plants and is not
trying to develop a nuclear weapons program?

How many times have you visited Arak, Natanz,
Bushehr, Esfahan, Yazd, Saghand, Lavizan and
two more dozen sites there with your Geiger
counter in hand?

Many bits and pieces of information can only be
explained by Iran actively developing nuclear
weapons, or trying to get there. One does not
need heavy water reactors just for electricity.

The only known use that would compel Iran to
build a heavy water reactor (and a very large
one at that) is to generate weapons grade
plutonium. The claim they need such a large
reactor to generate plutonium for medical
applications belongs in a Marx Brothers
movie. When completed the Arak reactor will
produce more plutonium than can be possibly
used by all the hospitals and research labs
in the world for hundreds of years. Why do
they need it? There are half a dozen designs
for power producing nuclear reactors that do
not generate weapons grade plutonium. Why did
they pick the only one that does?

Likewise, one does not need to develop medium
and long range ballistic missiles to deliver
conventional warheads. The economics just do
not make sense.

I do not wish to incinerate a single person,
let alone 68M. History unfortunately suggests
that rogue regimes and nations do not give up
until and unless they experience great losses
of civilian lives. Germany did not capitulate
because it lost the war on the battle fields.
It only surrendered after the Allies bombed
all its major cities to rubble and occupied
its land. Japan likewise did not surrender
because it had been vanquished militarily.
It only agreed to lay down arms after two
major cities were vaporized.

Iran has had plenty of opportunity to show
the world that it does not have nuclear
weapons, or plans to develop them. It has
turned down every ouverture and concession
offered by the West. Why should the West
risk its survival in order to satisfy the
world dominance ambitions of religious
fanatics straight out of the darkest
Middle Ages?

Ahmadinejad and his handlers have been quite
consistent in stating they want to destroy
the US, the West and Israel in order to set
up a new Caliphate. Is there any reason the
West should not take them at face value? This
is turning very quickly into a zero sum game.

Why should one wory about the other side’s
survival rather than ours?

If the UK and France had given Germany an
ultimatum in 1936 and destroyed its military
industries, over 50M lives could have been
spared, at the cost of perhaps 500,000 killed
in Germany. Nuking Iran’s military installations
and nuclear plants may kill a few millions in
Iran. However unfortunate, that would be far
preferable to having hundreds of millions
killed elsewhere later because of the West’s
failure to act at the right time.

If Iran wants to show the world that it is not
seeking nuclear weapons, it can do all or some
of the following:

Open up all its nuclear sites (including the
suspected clandestine sites) to continuous
IAEA suprvision and spot inspections.

Agree to run low level enrichment in Russia
to the level required for power generation.

Agree to have all its spent nuclear fuel
re-exported under IAEA control rather than
reprocessed locally.

Stop supporting and funding Hamas, Hizbollah
and the Shiite militias in Iraq.

It doesn’t sound too hard, does it?

Do you disagree?
April 8th, 2006 at 2:22 pm
11
Peter Franklin Says:

Count,

The US has enough ordnance (conventional and
nuclear) and the means to deliver it before
Iran can fire a single shot. Provided, of
course, that the matter is not taken first
to Congress for endless and pointless debate.

Do you disagree?
April 8th, 2006 at 2:24 pm
12
weldon berger Says:

Peter: there is a vast difference between a nuclear plant and the possibility of a nuclear weapons development program. There’s no evidence of the latter and there’s not even the slightest possibility that an entire plant could be concealed from the IAEA.

And speaking of the AIEA, the US is attempting to pressure that organization to stop negotiating with Iran. We don’t want to know for sure whether or not Iran has a nuclear program, any more than we wanted to know for sure that Saddam had chemical or nuclear weapons; if you’ll recall, the UN inspectors were forced out of Iraq by Bush when it became apparent they weren’t going to find anything. Two more months and that particular justification for the invasion would have vanished. The administration want regime change in Iran, and they won’t get it if the country gets a clean bill of health.

I no longer take seriously any discussion of state-sponsored terrorism. How many civilians do you suppose Hamas and Hezbulah combined have killed? Is it more than the Contras killed? More than US-sponsored guerillas in Afghanistan killed? More than Salvadoran and Guatemalan death squads killed? More than Saddam killed while he enjoyed our support?More than Pinochet killed? More than Suharto killed?

The US is perfectly content funding murderous organizations and supporting murderous states so long as it suits our purposes, and the people who die as result of that support are just as dead as are the victims of terrorists and guerillas who aren’t on our side. So don’t even bother with that crap: if you want other states to stop supporting murderers, how about we lead by example?

Let me take a brief moment to speak on the Count’s behalf: We bombed Iraq for 40 days and nights in the first Gulf War, and didn’t come close to destroying all their hardware. Iran is in better shape now than Iraq was then, and has had the better part of two decades to implement the lessons learned from Saddam’s fate in that war and the current war with respect to protecting military and research installations. There is no way, none, to guarantee that a US first strike would take out Iran’s entire retaliatory capacity. The only question is how much damage they could do with what they have left. And the fastest way to guarantee “hundreds of millions” of casualties is to start slinging nukes around. Your casual dismissal of a few million casualties, and your breathtakingly ignorant assumption that it’s possible to inflict that sort of damage essentially without risk, is sick. If nothing else, Iran has millions of sympathizers in Iraq, and any attack on the former country will make the latter completely unsurvivable for westerners, in uniform or otherwise.

Iran is a state with many unpleasant characteristics. It has, however, shown no inclination to act other than in its own interests. If we want to prevent them from developing a successful nuclear weapons program, assuming that’s what they want, then we need to sit down and talk with them and work out a mutually agreeable arrangement.

Having just proven in the most unmistakeable manner imagininable the limits of US military power on the ground, it would be the very stupidest possible move to prove the limits of our air power, particularly to satsify the crackhead policy hallucinations espoused by you and the administration.
April 8th, 2006 at 3:05 pm
13
Count Iblis Says:

Peter, I agree with Weldon’s reply. Let me just comment on your example of Germany in 1936. What we are doing w.r.t. Iran now is very similar to the way Germany was treated after the first world war. A more reasonable approach at that time could have prevented WWII.
April 9th, 2006 at 3:04 am
14
Amin Hadavand Says:

Amin:

I can only say Iran is not Iraq as Rice mentioned before.and war is not the only way you think..
and the information weldon stated before is not based on a true story..
(forgive me for my poor english)
April 9th, 2006 at 1:49 pm
15
Tom Bowers Says:

After World War II, Germany and Japan were conquered nations. Now they have thriving democracies.

The chief problem with the war in Iraq is that Bush won the war but miserably failed to conquer the nation of Iraq. Consequently, America is in the impossible position of playing peace maker to a population that was never conquered and thinks the whole process is a joke.

Focusing on Iran, there is no point in iniating a war that does not conquer the nation. We should remember that people are responsible for the governments that they permit to rule them in all circumstances. They are the problem. Any war that fails to teach the Iranian people that they should never again permit a theocracy of fundamentalist lunatics to govern them would be an utter failure.

Iran and other fundamentalist Islamic regimes make no distinctions between military and civilian foes. It would be folly for the United States and allies to make such a distinction when waging a war against Iran and pretending that civilian casualties are “collateral” damage to be avoided. This is the same population that chants “Death of America” five times a day after call to prayer.

It is time for a nuclear war against Iran. The population deserves no more compassion or mercy than was afforded to the German and Japanese supporters of fascism. Iran has a death wish for America and a death wish involving martyrdom for themselves. Let them have it before thay get their hands on nuclear weapons and use them against civilized humanity.
April 9th, 2006 at 7:15 pm
16
Count Iblis Says:

Tom, you seem to have forgotten that America supported Saddam in his war against Iran in which he used chemical weapons. You don’t understand why they would shout : ”Death to America”, yet on this forum, you are shouting: ”Death to Iran”.
April 10th, 2006 at 3:24 am
17
Amin Hadavand Says:

Amin:

I’m an Iranian student wich has studied in the same university which Mr. Ahmadinejad was the professor there.
I’m not his fan or somthing like this.actually I hate him.
but I think some of your comments and ideas are not the truth aboat Iran and iranian peaople.
now I’m ready to discuss with you in a friendly manner.
April 10th, 2006 at 10:45 am
18
Count Iblis Says:

Amin,

There are other sites on the internet where you can discuss these issues without being insulted. This forum seems to attract extremists of the worst kind.
April 10th, 2006 at 3:20 pm
19
Tom Bowers Says:

Count,

Does it please you to make insubstantial remarks? Or is this a character flaw? You know that Islamic fundamentalists would kill you and your children without provocation. If this is your wish, let them arm themselves sufficiently and it will come true.

Tom
April 11th, 2006 at 3:02 pm
20
Joe Says:

More proof people don’t change their minds. Its sad that people formulate opinions without doing their homework. The US will not nuke Iran. Is an explanation why really necessary? To suggest the US does not possess the capability to pulverize Iran in a single night is pure ignorance. Lets see…Tomahawks from ships, and subs…JSOW on B-52’s, B-1’s, F-16’s, up to 80 GPS guided small diameter bombs on each B-2 (say 12 deployed or so) F-117’s (say 45 deployed), 2 squadrons of F-22’s (with less radar emission than the F-117 and the list goes on and on. Once you blind them and make them deaf, they cannot effectively coordinate offensive or counter offensive movements effectively. Did anyone learn anything from two campaigns in Iraq? And to suggest the PAC 3 and Laser defense systems would not be effective is utter denial. Those countermeasures have already been proven successful against what Iran as to strike with. Sure some will leak through, but it certainly wont be calamitous. Also remember our assets can be synchronized for a simultaneous strike and most are located in and near theatre already. Do not confuse what America can employ and what it does deploy at times. The US uses measured force, albeit overwhelming. A true shock and awe would be leveled against Iran (that would make Iraq look like ameteur night at gunnery school) with the above assets, not to mention SOCOM assets. The fact is none of our arguments even need be made. The bottom line is the Iranian Theocracy and President believe it is prophecy to bring in their “Mahdi”. Death or long suffering is of no consequence to them as it is martyrdom in their minds which has the rewards of heaven. You cannot politicize or rationalize their religous fervor. To do so is pure folly. Their intentions are obvious, they have stated as much, and there is no better way to eliminate a small nation than with a nuclear bomb, and it need not be delivered by a Shahab 3 missile. The zero sum game has already begun and the only chance at averting Iran’s destruction is for the people of Iran to overthrow the government. If they don’t, they will suffer as the Iraqi’s did because we will destroy their infrastructure and their ability to wage war. This time, however, we will not be rebuilding their country. We cannot afford it.
April 14th, 2006 at 10:45 am
21
Weldon Berger Says:

Joe, your faith in modern weaponry is touching, but misplaced. If there’s a lesson to be drawn from the bombing of Iraq in 1991 and 2003, it’s that bombs and missiles don’t always hit what they’re aimed at and that even when they do, it takes days of extremely heavy bombing to knock out the facilities of even a beat-down third rate country like Iraq, and, obviously, even that’s not enough to win a war.
April 14th, 2006 at 12:00 pm

Pages

Categories

Archives

Search BTC News

Meta

The case for a US attack on Iran

21 Responses to “The case for a US attack on Iran”

Leave a Reply