The Real Reason for Nuking Iran

[Guest guest]

S

Sat, 5 Nov 2005 12:27:55 -0800 (PST)

The Real Reason for Nuking Iran

 

 

 

 

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/hirsch.php?articleid=7861

 

 

 

November 1, 2005

 

 

The Real Reason for Nuking Iran

 

Why a nuclear attack is on the neocon agenda

by Jorge Hirsch

 

 

 

 

The strategic decision by the United States to nuke Iran was probably

made long ago. Tactics adjust to unpredictable events as they unfold.

 

There was such an event last week, when Iran's president declared that

Israel must be " wiped off " the map. The surprise was not the

statement, which was an often-repeated quote by the late Ayatollah

Khomeini, directed at a domestic student audience. What was surprising

was both the timing (amid discussions about whether Iran should be

allowed to enrich uranium) and the relatively low-key U.S. response.

Tony Blair expressed " revulsion, " Chirac was " profoundly shocked, " the

European Union in a joint statement " condemned [it] in the strongest

terms. " Instead, Bush was quiet.

 

White House Spokesman Scott McClellan commented, " It underscores the

concerns we have about Iran's nuclear intentions, " and the usually

vociferous U.S. ambassador to the UN John Bolton only said that

Ahmadinejad's remarks about Israel were " pernicious and unacceptable. "

Those are uncharacteristically mild statements for this administration

in the face of such a provocative statement by Iran against one of the

U.S.' closest allies. Why?

 

Because Iran's intended underlying message to the U.S., which was

ill-timed only in appearance, was: If you nuke us, the world will know

that you did it because Iran supports the Palestinian cause.

 

Instead, it is in the U.S.' interests to de-emphasize any suggestion

to that effect, hence its low-key response. Because nuking Iran for

threatening Israel will inflame the Arab world and will not be

acceptable to our European allies nor even to the American public.

There are many other justifications that the Western world and the

American public will find more acceptable, and these will be

emphasized by the Bush administration at the right moment.

 

* Iran " is determined to get nuclear weapons deliverable on

ballistic missiles that it can then use to intimidate not only its own

region but possibly to supply to terrorists. " (John Bolton, Oct. 15, 2005)

 

* " We cannot let Iran, a leading sponsor of international

terrorism, acquire the most destructive weapons and the means to

deliver them to Europe, most of central Asia and the Middle East, or

beyond. " (John Bolton, June 24, 2004)

 

* " yria and Iran … share the goal of hurting America. … State

sponsors like Syria and Iran have a long history of collaboration with

terrorists…. " (George Bush, Oct. 6, 2005)

* The 9/11 Commission determined that al-Qaeda had long-standing

and strong ties to Iran, for example that " senior al-Qaeda operatives

and trainers traveled to Iran to receive training in explosives. " (By

contrast, it found no ties between al-Qaeda and Iraq).

* Iran was responsible for the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing, where

19 Americans were killed and 372 wounded, according to a June 2001

indictment by the U.S. attorney general. According to the 9/11

Commission, al-Qaeda may also have been involved.

* Hezbollah, a terrorist group tied to Iran, carried out the

suicide bombing in Beirut that killed 241 U.S. Marines in 1982. Iran

was directly involved, according to a ruling by U.S. District Court

Judge Royce Lamberth in May 2003.

The real reason for nuking Iran, however, is none of the above. It was

spelled out with surprising candor in the Pentagon draft document

" Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations " [.pdf] as one of several

possible reasons geographic combatant commanders may request

presidential approval for use of nuclear weapons:

" To demonstrate U.S. intent and capability to use nuclear weapons to

deter adversary use of WMD. "

Yes, you read it right: The U.S. is prepared to break a 60-year-old

taboo on the use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear countries –

not because the survival of the country is at stake, not because the

lives of many Americans or allies are at stake – just to demonstrate

that it can do it.

The U.S. has maintained for some time now that it reserves the right

to respond with nuclear weapons to attacks or intended attacks with

WMD, and that it intends to use nuclear weapons to destroy underground

enemy facilities. It is argued that such statements have deterrent

value, and that maintaining ambiguity as to what might trigger a U.S.

nuclear attack deters countries from pursuing military initiatives

that are contrary to U.S. interests.

Nonsense. Those statements have no deterrent value because no one in

his or her right mind would believe that the greatest democracy in the

world would do such a thing.

Unless the U.S. demonstrates, by actually doing it once, that it is

indeed prepared to do so.

How do you create the conditions to perform such a demonstration and

avoid immediate universal condemnation?

* You declare Iran to be the second member of the " axis of evil. "

* You start a " global war on terror. "

* You invade the first member of the axis (Iraq) and put 150,000

U.S. troops at the doorstep of the second member, in harm's way – not

enough troops to invade Iran, nor to prevent an Iranian invasion of

Iraq after Iran is attacked.

* You strike Iran's facilities, using conventional and nuclear

bombs, to deter Iran from retaliating with missiles with chemical

warheads and from invading Iraq, thereby saving the lives of 150,000

American soldiers.

* You argue that Iran's chemical and nuclear facilities had to be

destroyed to prevent terrorists using weapons from those facilities to

attack the U.S. (Never mind that the nuclear facilities were just

nuclear reactors, not nuclear weapons).

* You get Israel to pull the trigger, i.e., bomb some Iranian

installations (as it did in Iraq at Osirak) to provoke an Iranian

response.

Now enter the world after the U.S. " demo, " according to U.S. planners:

* There will be no doubt that U.S. statements on the use of

nuclear weapons will have deterrent value.

* The Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty will be amended to prohibit

uranium-enrichment for all countries that do not do it already;

violators will be nuked.

* North Korea will be forced to disarm under the now real and

credible threat of massive U.S. nuclear attack.

* Any country suspected of pursuing nuclear weapons or any other

military capability that could threaten the U.S. or its allies will be

nuked.

* Russia, China, and all other nuclear countries will eventually

be forced to disarm under the threat of massive U.S. nuclear attack.

However, the real world does not always follow the script envisioned

by U.S. planners, as the Iraq experience illustrates. So here is a

more likely " post-demo " scenario:

* Many non-nuclear countries, including those currently friendly

to the U.S., will rush to develop a nuclear deterrent, and many will

succeed.

* Terrorist groups sympathetic to Iran will do their utmost to

retaliate in-kind against the U.S., and eventually will succeed.

* With the taboo against the use of nuclear weapons broken, use of

them by other countries will follow in various regional conflicts, and

subsequent escalation will lead to global nuclear war.

Bye-bye world, including the United States of America.