07
Apr
2006
New Yorker: Bush preparing nuclear strike on Iran (Update)
Yesterday, I suggested that a bombing campaign against Iran would satisfy the Bush administration need for vindication of their foreign policy delusions without requiring another messy ground war and occupation. Today, Agence France Presse reports that the April 17 issue of The New Yorker magazine carries a story on US plans for a massive bombing campaign against Iran, possibly including the use of nuclear weapons.
The New Yorker story, written by investigative reporter Seymour Hersh, says the administration think “a sustained bombing campaign in Iran will humiliate the religious leadership and lead the public to rise up and overthrow the government.”
AFP paraphrases Hersh as saying that “Bush and others in the White House have come to view Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad as a potential Adolf Hitler.”
Hersh’s story adds to fears expressed by centrist foreign policy analyst Joseph Cirincione, which I commented on here, and others who believe the Bush administration are perfectly capable of attempting to top the enormous strategic blunder they committed in Iraq by attacking Iran. But Hersh’s story will go beyond chatter to detail actual policy and planning machinations within the White House and Pentagon.
The story also adds significance to news of Pentagon plans to detonate a .6 kiloton bomb in a test, codenamed “Divine Strake,” to be carried out in the Nevada desert. The Pentagon says the test is aimed at exploring the effectiveness of non-nuclear bunker-busters, but taken in tandem with the revelations from Hersh, the size of the bomb — 700 tons, many times the capacity of even our largest cargo planes to deliver — suggests instead that the military are using it to circumvent the ban on nuclear testing. (We talked about Divine Strake in conjunction with British attempts to foment anti-Iranian sentiment in the UK, here.)
The details of Hersh’s story as described by AFP ring true; for one, Saddam was often compared to Hitler in the runup to the Iraq invasion. The comparison was obscene and overblown then and even more so now: Iran’s Ahmadinejad has nowhere near the absolute authority enjoyed by Hitler and Saddam, and unlike Nazi Germany and Iraq, Iran has no history of military aggression against its neighbors and, absent a threat from the US, no compelling reason to adopt a militant posture now.
Objections from skeptics regarding the possibility of a US attack on Iran generally arise from one or both of two mistaken assumptions: first, that an attack on Iran is precluded because it would involve heavy use of US ground forces, which simply aren’t available; and second, that the Bush administration have learned humbling lessons from the invasion of Iraq. But as I have repeatedly said, it wouldn’t and they haven’t. It appears, rather, that at least some of them have sunk so far into delusion that they seriously believe a massive bombing attack on Iran would, as I jokingly suggested yesterday, cause the Iranian public to rise up and embrace the US.
One of the major disappointments arising from the marketing of the war on Iraq is that not a single one of the senior administration, intelligence or military officials who knew full well that the invasion was likely to result in disaster had the courage to stand up, resign and go public with their concerns. I don’t know if that would have stopped the war, but it would at least have put a speed bump in the path of the administration’s marketing effort and the wholesale embrace of it by the press.
Now, astonishing as it seems, the administration are seriously considering an even more dangerous blunder with even more serious consequences. If ever there were a time for government and military officials to put country above career, and if ever there were a time for the press to do their goddamned jobs, this is it. I don’t know if there is in fact any way short of what would amount to a counter-coup to prevent a president who considers himself the supreme authority on national security from going to war, but at some point we’ll no longer have the opportunity to find out.
On a sociological note, it may be worth pointing out that Ahmadinejad is considerably more popular in Iran than Bush is in the US, yet the odds that an attack on the US aimed at overthrowing Bush would in fact lead to his overthrow are nil.
===============
Update corrects spelling of Seymour Hersh, adds Ahmadinejad/Bush popularity comparison
![[del.icio.us]](http://www.btcnews.com/btcnews/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/delicious.png)
![[Digg]](http://www.btcnews.com/btcnews/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/digg.png)
![[Google]](http://www.btcnews.com/btcnews/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/google.png)
![[LinkedIn]](http://www.btcnews.com/btcnews/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/linkedin.png)
![[StumbleUpon]](http://www.btcnews.com/btcnews/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/stumbleupon.png)
![[Windows Live]](http://www.btcnews.com/btcnews/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/windowslive.png)
![[Yahoo!]](http://www.btcnews.com/btcnews/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/yahoo.png)
![[Email]](http://www.btcnews.com/btcnews/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/email.png)
The link to Hersh’s article is:
April 8th, 2006 at 5:56 amhttp://www.newyorker.com/printables/fact/060417fa_fact
Yeah, someone’s delusional alright, it’s the author of this story. An invasion of Iran would be a U.N. joint effort – the U.N. is already taking (pathetically slow) steps toward that end.
Secondly, a bombing campaign would actually humiliate the religious leadership in Iran because the religious leadership repeatedly tells it’s subjects that their government is invincible and immune to attack from infidels. Bombs raining down from the sky would cast considerable doubt on the government and quickly dispel the myth of their invincibility.
If the author doubts there’s any correlation between Saddam Hussein, the leader of Iran and Hitler, it’s because he’s never lived in either country under those leaders and because he’s never seriously investigated the views and beliefs of the Iranian President.
More proof positive that the New Yorker magazine doesn’t even make good birdcage lining.
April 8th, 2006 at 9:05 amSir you really need to get your facts in order
April 8th, 2006 at 10:03 amahmadinejad is not more popular than bush thats the most unbeleivable comment that can be made and for your info over 75% of iranians will welcome a US. attack on islamic republic to be able to get rid of mullahs please do more research before you publish an article like this and if you hate bush thats no reason to justify islamic republic as long as mullahs are in power you will never be able to settle the iraqi issues …. THATS A FACT !!
A stable peacefull and democratic mideast can not be achieved if the mullahs are ruling in IRAN and for your info the most favorite person in IRAN is George w Bush he can easily become IRAN’s Next President people of IRAN love this guy check my facts for yourself refer to iranian media on satellite tv.
That was a very convincing bit of comedy, Dr. Majid! Those nuts really do think and write nonsense like that! You had me for a minute. Well done!
flyrcsw, not bad either!
April 8th, 2006 at 10:47 amAha, the revanchist Iranian expatriates have arrived, right on time. Javid Shah!
I don’t know about “considerably” more popular. Ahmadinejad has a strong constituency, but the Iranian presidency is a weak and broken thing at this point, a fact obvious to everyone in Iran, and almost certainly to everyone in the White House too. As you say, the Hitler stuff is just atmospherics.
I’ll read the Hersh article, but I’d be totally, totally shocked if they bombed. Any delay in the, um, promised revolution would be so totally catastrophic: Iraq, Palestine, even Pakistan, are all on the line. My strong intuition is this is just Condi’s idea of hardball (counter Iran’s leverage in Iraq, forestall potential contributions to Hamas, etcetera), and for once Hersh is being played.
But let’s assume they are, insanely, serious. How to proceed? A Democratic Senate resolution forbidding all bombing outside Iraq under the present AUMF? A Supreme Court suit? Preventive anti-war demonstrations?
The man’s elected, it’s hard to undo.
April 8th, 2006 at 1:04 pmflyrcsw: The theory that killing large numbers of people will cause them to embrace you hasn’t proved out real well in Iraq, even without nuclear weapons. And the UN will never, ever sanction an invasion of Iran, nor are any of our allies prepared to contribute to an invasion force, nor do we have the resources to mount an invasion; hence all the talk of bombing.
Dr. Majid: I’m not justifying the Islamic regime, and neither do I hate Bush; I just think he’s a dangerous maniac, and whether or not he could win an election in Iran, I wouldn’t wish him on that country, most especially if they’re anywhere near developing nuclear weapons.
April 8th, 2006 at 2:25 pmM-A, it’s possible the administration are betting that duplicating the construct they built for the war in Iraq is just a way to bluff the Iranians into thinking Bush is crazier than the Ayatollahs are, but does anyone actually need proof at this point? My take is that people in the administration and the military are talking this up because they think Bush is really considering the notion and they want to short-circuit the loop the way they didn’t do with Iraq.
April 8th, 2006 at 3:45 pmTHE IRAN PLANS
by SEYMOUR M. HERSH
Would President Bush go to war to stop Tehran from getting the bomb?
The only relavent questions is:
Should (fill in the blank) go to war to stop Tehran from getting the bomb.
One little spelling change from a “W” to an “S”………..
April 9th, 2006 at 4:16 amHersch addressed this issue today on CNN. He’s done his research, including the theological aspects of Dominion Theology. So far the man has been ‘right on’. I’ll read the full story later, but knowing the history of this administration, I tend to believe Hersch. His credibility far outweights anyone else in Washington’s Axis of Evil (Bush and the gang.) Cheers!
April 9th, 2006 at 10:46 amIt seems Paul Krugman has jumped on your bandwagon too In NYT OP=Ed pages on April 10, 2006. So far it still reads more like speculation than confirmation of an actual policy decision.
Nevertheless, at your request, I continue with my never ending, obviously biased (is there any other kind?) political limericks.
It’s becoming much clearer each day,
April 10th, 2006 at 4:30 amGood King George thinks he can bomb away,
Iraqi concerns,
Election returns,
Building empire’s not easy, they say.