Who Will Stop Them?

I must admit, after reading Seymore Hersh's latest story in the New Yorker magazine, I fear my country is going to use nuclear weapons against another country in another “pre-emptive” war. That country? Iran.

Hersh writes ….

There is a growing conviction among members of the United States military, and in the international community, that President Bush’s ultimate goal in the nuclear confrontation with Iran is regime change. Iran’s President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, has challenged the reality of the Holocaust and said that Israel must be “wiped off the map.” Bush and others in the White House view him as a potential Adolf Hitler, a former senior intelligence official said. “That’s the name they’re using. They say, ‘Will Iran get a strategic weapon and threaten another world war?’ ”

Hmmm, reminds me of Sept. 2002, before the stupid Iraq invasion, when our top officials were busy comparing Saddam Hussein to Hitler. Maybe these losers running our government should start a “Hitler of the Month” club.

Naturally, Israel plays a huge part in our Middle East policy and our relationship with the entire Islamic world. And, in the case of attacking Iran, it seems that one justification will be that we’re defending Israel from destruction via the Iranian bomb. Hersh continues …

I was told by several officials that the White House’s interest in preventing an Israeli attack on a Muslim country, which would provoke a backlash across the region, was a factor in its decision to begin the current operational planning. In a speech in Cleveland on March 20th, President Bush depicted Ahmadinejad’s hostility toward Israel as a “serious threat. It’s a threat to world peace.” He added, “I made it clear, I’ll make it clear again, that we will use military might to protect our ally Israel.”

This is a confusing rationale for attacking Iran to me, I must admit. The United States says it fears the angry Islamic backlash an Israeli attack on the Iranian nuke program would provoke. Yet our confused leaders shows no worry over the fallout of an American bombing of Iran: like a potential terror campaign against us at home and abroad, boosted Iranian backing of insurgents in Iraq, an oil cutoff and another spike in worldwide revulsion over American cowboy-ism.

Also: we’ve armed Israel to the teeth, at great expense to the American image in many parts of the world and at great expense to the American taxpayer. If Israel sees Iran as a bona fide threat, let the Israelis take out the mullahs’ enrichment program. The Israeli Air Force is more than capable!

But perhaps protection of Israel is not the main rationale for our attack on Iran. Nor are fears of a nuclear Iran becoming more of a regional power. The primary issue may be, oh yeah, our “addiction to oil.”

“This is much more than a nuclear issue,” one high-ranking diplomat told me in Vienna. “That’s just a rallying point, and there is still time to fix it. But the Administration believes it cannot be fixed unless they control the hearts and minds of Iran. The real issue is who is going to control the Middle East and its oil in the next ten years.”

Isn’t it amazing that rather than undertaking a national crash diet on oil consumption and funding a Apollo Program/Manhattan Project–type endeavor to develop alternative energies, we’ve decided it’s better policy to invade and occupy countries possessing the last plentiful oil reserves on Earth? It’s high-octane madness. And who will stand up to the retardo-cons in charge of the U.S. military? Nobody!

In recent weeks, the President has quietly initiated a series of talks on plans for Iran with a few key senators and members of Congress, including at least one Democrat.

If this isn’t Joe Lieberman, I’ll eat my blog.

A senior member of the House Appropriations Committee, who did not take part in the meetings but has discussed their content with his colleagues, told me that there had been “no formal briefings,” because “they’re reluctant to brief the minority. They’re doing the Senate, somewhat selectively.”

[…]

“The only political pressure is from the guys who want to do it.” Speaking of President Bush, the House member said, “The most worrisome thing is that this guy has a messianic vision.”

Here’s the kicker: because the Iranian nuke program is spread over many fortified and dug-in locations, our genius planners (who brought you the wonderfully well thought out Iraq War) hope to utilize nuclear weapons in Iran!

The lack of reliable intelligence leaves military planners, given the goal of totally destroying the sites, little choice but to consider the use of tactical nuclear weapons. “Every other option, in the view of the nuclear weaponeers, would leave a gap,” the former senior intelligence official said. “ ‘Decisive’ is the key word of the Air Force’s planning. It’s a tough decision. But we made it in Japan.”

He went on, “Nuclear planners go through extensive training and learn the technical details of damage and fallout—we’re talking about mushroom clouds, radiation, mass casualties, and contamination over years. This is not an underground nuclear test, where all you see is the earth raised a little bit. These politicians don’t have a clue, and whenever anybody tries to get it out”—remove the nuclear option—“they’re shouted down.”

According to Hersh, the self-evident insanity of a preemptive nuclear war on Iran has prompted at least a few uniformed leaders to consider stepping down, including members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. It’s nice to know the yahoos in the military are somewhat saner than the Cult of Bush’s nuclear warmongers.

Late this winter, the Joint Chiefs of Staff sought to remove the nuclear option from the evolving war plans for Iran—without success, the former intelligence official said. “The White House said, ‘Why are you challenging this? The option came from you.’ ”

The Pentagon adviser on the war on terror confirmed that some in the Administration were looking seriously at this option, which he linked to a resurgence of interest in tactical nuclear weapons among Pentagon civilians and in policy circles. He called it “a juggernaut that has to be stopped.”

One thing Hirsch doesn’t mention in the piece is U.S. domestic politics. Note to the Democrats in Congress: wake up. Iran is next, and it could happen in the lead-up to the 2006 mid-terms. What could wash away the low Bush poll numbers, the bitter memories of Katrina, revulsion over Abramoff, DeLay and Cunningham, as well as the pitiful quagmire in Iraq, better than a new war? Imagine the screaming graphics on TV, the headlines, the excitement, the war footage, the sickly sweet thrill of being on the march.

The GOP, Bush, the military, the oil companies all need a war with Iran. Who will stop them?