Nuclear Attack on Iran Planned?
Recently, George Lakoff wrote a provocative post about The Words None Dare Say: Nuclear War. “What we are seeing now is the conservative message machine preparing the country to accept the idea of a nuclear war …against Iran.”
Of course, Iran has no nuclear weapons program. However, we have to consider that the Bush administration has never let real-world information stand in the way of their war plans before.
Since at least April 2006, whenever President Bush is asked if the US is planning a nuclear strike on Iran, he answers: “All options are on the table” (means “yes”). All three leading presidential candidates give the same answer as Bush. The reason is that the Natanz Nuclear Facility is the number one target in Iran, and it probably can’t be taken out using high-explosive bunker-busting bombs.
The weapon of choice is likely to be the B61 Mod 11, a ground-penetrating bunker buster variant of the standard B61 nuclear bomb. The Mod 11 weighs about 1,200 lbs, and has a hardened reinforced casing (according to some sources, containing depleted uranium). About 50 Mod 11 bombs have been produced since 1994. They are designed to be delivered by the B-2 Bomber.
As far as I know, the only significant obstacle blocking Bush’s attack plans is CENTCOM commander Admiral William Fallon. Admiral Fallon has been memorably quoted as saying that an attack on Iran “will not happen on my watch.”
According to a new article by Thomas P.M. Barnett in the April issue of Esquire magazine (on newsstands March 12), Admiral Fallon may be prematurely relieved of his command as soon as this summer.
During a March 4th House Foreign Affairs hearing on U.S. commitments to Iraq, State Department official David Satterfield was asked whether it was a constitutional requirement for the administration to consult with Congress in the commitment of U.S. forces in a battle zone. He refused to answer the question, instead asking for 24 hours to prepare a response. In a letter delivered yesterday, Assistant Secretary of State Jeffrey T. Bergner wrote that the Bush administration believes the President already has congressional authorization to go to war anywhere in the world.
During the Bush presidency, Congress has passed two resolutions authorizing the use of military force. The first was the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Terrorists in September 2001. The second was the Iraq AUMF in October 2002.
Some observers have noted that the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment (PDF) that passed the Senate last September designated the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (part of the Iranian military) as a “terrorist organization.” This was probably intended to lay the groundwork for an attack on Iran using the war-making power granted by the September 2001 AUMF.
It would be nice to go about our daily lives without having to worry that our own government is plotting to start a nuclear war. Unfortunately, we don’t have that luxury.
UPDATE: On March 11, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates announced that CENTCOM commander Adm. William Fallon has submitted his resignation.
March 6th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
The war criminals, the racists, those who would do what you’re suggesting, are really only a very small minority of us. That they have a minimalized compuction (among other minimalized components) is the only difference between them and the sane / good citizen. They have grabbed the power, done the crime and somehow expect the rest of us to continue to pick up the bills (monetary and karmic). Because Goebbels says they rule and because Bush / Cheney have the ‘power of the signing statement’, we are supposed to bow to them even though they’ve mocked, laughed at our moral make-up, stolen and murdered millions. Their definition of leadership and my own are vastly different.
The signing statement that my name is affixed to is the Constitution - and by its words, I hereby disolve the Bush administration. One maniac to another.
Thank you all. Peace , Accountability and Slack for the masses, Caveat
March 6th, 2008 at 9:05 pm
Almost all wars and revolutionary movements are minority events.
Things have never been really any different, recent American generations have had this truth kept from them until it became so obvious some of them took a look behind the curtain to view the funny little men running their lives.
The rig looks like a V-2. Same old, same old…story.
March 6th, 2008 at 10:19 pm
Actually, a short time before Bush brought “shock and awe” to Iraq, he said he had no plans on his desk to do so. Even when he says something is OFF the table, it’s really on. Up is down, black is white, ect… Everything is what they say it is, at the time they wish to say it, or it isn’t, or it is.
And this is the reason we’re told the media is afraid to ask hard questions of our national and local leaders. They are afraid they won’t get any leaders to talk with them again. Can anybody tell me what the value of talking to most of our leaders is? You can’t believe anything, any republican says, and you can’t believe anything a lot of democrats say. And for some stupid reason, you can’t believe anything any politician says about election fraud except for one who is in prison and disallowed from speaking.
March 7th, 2008 at 12:09 am
Larry, just a quip: While we did not directly feel the concussions, that shock and awe were not meant for the Iraqi’s alone, You understand.
March 7th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Update: This is Larry Bergan, not Anonymous. I cleaned my cookie jar again.
I think Howard Dean experienced a taste of “shock and awe” after he told Chris Matthews about his media consolidation plans. Both his and the Iraq counterpart were seen and heard VERY WIDELY on the Grand Wurlitzer media pipe organ. Dean was portrayed as being crazy and cluster bombing children for effect was seen as patriotic.
The really horrifying thing is that in both instances, it worked…
…or seemed to work.
March 7th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
There. That’s better!