Going Nuclear - So Much For Progress

Think Progress headlines:

Seymour Hersh: Bush Planning Massive Bombing Campaign Against Iran, Including Nukes

And the AP follows suit:

US considers use of nuclear weapons against Iran

Neither of those pieces manufactured from the original Hersh story objectively depict the story. The story indicates there is a potential for a limited use of tactical nuclear weapons for their bunker busting capability and that there's potential opposition from the Pentagon to which the White House would likely bow.

To not plan for a possible military option as regards Iran's nuclear program would be foolish. Emphasis my own, of course one plans for many contingencies. Said planning is as much a part of the diplomatic dialog as anything else and Think Progress and the AP are basically carrying the White House's water by spreading the report. Too bad they can't do it less sensationally.

From the Hersh piece:

There is a Cold War precedent for targeting deep underground bunkers with nuclear weapons. In the early nineteen-eighties, the American intelligence community watched as the Soviet government began digging a huge underground complex outside Moscow.

At the time, he said, it was determined that “only nukes” could destroy the bunker. He added that some American intelligence analysts believe that the Russians helped the Iranians design their underground facility. “We see a similarity of design,” specifically in the ventilator shafts, he said....

A former high-level Defense Department official told me that, in his view, even limited bombing would allow the U.S. to “go in there and do enough damage to slow down the nuclear infrastructure—it’s feasible.” The former defense official said, “The Iranians don’t have friends, and we can tell them that, if necessary, we’ll keep knocking back their infrastructure. The United States should act like we’re ready to go.”

... The matter may soon reach a decisive point, he said, because the Joint Chiefs had agreed to give President Bush a formal recommendation stating that they are strongly opposed to considering the nuclear option for Iran. “The internal debate on this has hardened in recent weeks,” the adviser said. “And, if senior Pentagon officers express their opposition to the use of offensive nuclear weapons, then it will never happen.”

There's far too much in the Hersh piece to simply jump to the headline or conclusion - Bush Is Going Nuclear On Iran. Unfortunately, that didn't stop Think Progress, or the AP. But then both outlets appear to have a tendency to go nuclear on Bush.

We don't need mushroom clouded brains thinking about and discussing options for Iran just now. We need reasoned debate on a topic which poses a serious risk to world peace. An oil-rich country with no current need for nuclear energy appears determined to develop a nuclear capability, after having declared their desire to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth.

No reasonable nation has gone on record as suggesting stopping them is a bad thing, most find it necessary. Planning for that is the prudent step. Characterizing it as demon, warmongering Bush taking up nuclear arms to confront Iran is not only silly, it's harmful and misleading for the necessary discussion at hand.

Comments

[splashtc]

There are way too many reasonable Iranian people that will be harmed to even consider this option esp. as a pre-emptive action. No nukes! It's not fair-it's not the american spirit.

[Sgt. York]

RE: "An oil-rich country with no current need for nuclear energy"

Actually an nuclear power plant makes sense. Generating electricity using oil is expensive and wastfull; particularly when the oil could be better used an an export item. In addition, a nuclear power plant could be used to cheaply de-salinate water and that water used to irrigate crops (not cost effective with oil-fired plants).

Best estimate puts Iran 5-10 years away from developing weapons grade material much less balistic missle technology or figuring out how to put everything together. India, Pakistan, and Israel aready have Nuclear Weapons and they refuse to sign the NPT.

If Iran attacks the US then by all means go to war. Dropping a nuclear bomb on a country that never attacked us - an unprovoked attack - is cowardly and pathetic.

-----------

[Observer]

Ahem,,,

Speaking of "making progress"....

Lets review the accuracy of the various players involved here.

Hersh story says that plans are being made, and they include nukes, except that Bush will defer to JCS if they object.

TP says: Bush planning....bombing campaign...including nukes.
AP says: US considers use of nukes...

How is that inaccurate? He IS considering, he IS planning. You want inaccurate? How about this...

Dan characterizes the TP and AP headlines as: Bush is going nuclear...

The headlines said nothing of the kind. They said what they said - he is considering, planning. "Going..." implies a decision has been made, and neither TP nor AP said that.

Its you who have the problem reporting things accurately.

[Matt Stoller]

Ok. So where do you stand on Bush using nuclear weapons on Iran?

[Jabba the Tutt]

Iran's Mullahs have extended gasoline rationing in Iran.

[M. Simon]

Where do I stand on Bush using nuclear weapons on Iran?

As far away as possible.

[annie]

The guy in charge of Iran at the moment is not yer normal rational human being, don't forget he thinks he is some kind of instrument that was born to usher in the return of the long awaited Mahdi, and who has already threated the destruction of Israel.

In other words, a crackpot!

President Bush has a dilemma on his hands, does he strike first, or does he sit and wait til this bozo unleashes WMDs on Israel and the US, making 9/11 look like nothing in comparison.

Well, what would you do?

Seems to me that he is damned if he does, or damned if he doesn't.

Yet there are so many people around who seem to think all this should be played out by some kind of polite rule, like, 'hey, old chap, you go first', answered by 'no, please, you first'.

Get real, the world is a very dangerous world, anything could happen anytime, and probably will. Sometimes, regrettably, it has to be a case of the lesser of two evils, and for you, what would that be??

[Beth]

Dan, I hope you'll forgive my exasperation here.

Are these guys fucking stupid? You too, Observer and Stoller. Maybe these people should learn to shut their fucking traps since they obviously know NOTHING about how PLANS are done in the Pentagon.

NEWS FLASH for you n00bs: There are probably several different scenarios involving nukes for Iran alone--and probably several more for China, and for North Korea, and maybe Venezuela and Cuba.
NEWS FLASH 2: THAT'S WHAT THE PENTAGON DOES. Always has, and unless a bunch of mental patients start running the joint, ALWAYS WILL.
NEWS FLASH 3: There are also "plans" for diplomatic strategy. I don't see any breathless headlines or stories saying "Bush planning diplomatic tactics!"

Aren't these the same people who say "Bush didn't plan for post-Saddam Iraq?" You can bet your ass they DID, despite their inability to predict events with 100% accuracy (unlike all these idiots who can, like predicting that Iraq would never have elections, etc.).

What a bunch of MORONS.

What? You're not stupid? OK, then you're an intellectually dishonest sack of shit. Anything for an anti-Bush score, eh?

[Phoenix]

This is the best psychological 'warfare' scenario I've seen in a long time. Iran's head Windbag is a lunatic. So what if some headline shrieks 'nukes' from our side of the pond. The Loon from Iran has been shrieking about them and about how he plans to wipe Israel off the face of the map. And the Pentagon is maybe NOT making plans to deal with this guy? Right. They've had plans on-going for years about possible problem spots all over the Levant. That's why Iraq is so important. People who think Bush invaded Iraq for military manuevers are living on another planet.

These headlines, no matter what the intention was, have served to flip out the Iranian population. Perfect. Let that country implode from within and problem solved. God, people with horse-blinders on make me sick. Talk about stupid - to base your geopolitical stand on one fact - hatred for Bush - makes a moron faster than a forced lobotomy.

[Isaac Logah]

Please,i want map of the world to do some work.Please help me.